THE ENGLISH Manner of SWEARING VINDICATED Or the JUDGEMENT of an Eminent Nonconformist MINISTER of LONDON, concerning these FOUR QUESTIONS VIZ. 

Q. I. Is it Lawful in Swearing to lay the Hand upon the BIBLE?  
Q. II. Is it Lawful to Kiss it in Swearing?  
Q III. May one that scrupleth thus Swearing himself, yet Commissioned, give an Oath thus to another that scrupleth it not▪  
Q. IU. How far is Swearing by Creatures a Sin?    
Wherein several OBJETIONS about the foresaid QVESIONS are Answered.  
Published for the Satisfaction of the Conscientious.  
LONDON Printed by R. W. for Moses Pitt, at the Angel in St. Paul's Churchyard. MDCLXXXVII.   

OBJECTIONS against the English manner of Swearing ANSWERED.  
IN the Title-page, the Lawfulness of Laying the hand on, and Kissing the Book are made two several Questions, which may here be comprehended in one, to both which one Answer may be Sufficient.  
Quest. 1. Is it lawful to lay the hand on the Bible and kissi it in Swearing?  
A●sw. It is not Unlawful.  
Proved 1st. That which is not forbidden by God, is lawful (before God) But so to take an Oath is not forbidden by God— Therefore, etc. The minor will be proved sufficiently by Disproving all the pretences of a Prohibition. The major needeth no Proof.  
2. If it be for bidden it is either, 1. As an Act in Worship not commanded, and so Will worship, 2. Or as a significant Ceremony in worship not commanded, 3. Or as an uncommanded significant Ceremony, which hath in itself some forbidden m●tt● or manner: But it is ●o● forbidden in any of these respects, therefore not at all.  
I. Not as an Act not commanded in worship: Then all Acts in worship not commanded would be unlawful, which is false; For, 1. The Acts used in swearing, Gen. 24.2. & 14.22. Rev. 10.5 were not commanded and yet lawful: of which more anon 2● God hath not commanded what Tune to sing a Psalm in, what Division to make of the Bible into Chapters & Verses, whether to use a written or a printed Bible, what words, what method, what particular Text to choose, what Translation to use, with many such like.  
II. Not as a significant Ceremony not Commanded: For then all such should be forbidden which is not true. For 1. A●raham's Swearing by lifting up the hand (and so the Angel's Rev. ●0. 5.) and Abraham's servant by putting his hand under the thigh were significant Ceremonies: And he that will say they were commanded must prove it: The contrary may well by us be supposed, 1. Because no such Law is notified in Scripture, and here non apparere and non esse are equal, because of the perfection of God's Laws. 1. Because it is mentioned, as Pa●aeus & other Commenta●ors note, as some accustomed Rite, and so depends, not on any particular Precept to Abraha● alone as a Prophet. 3. Because it is not one but several sorts of Swearing Rites that are mentioned, Lifting up the hand, and putting it under the Thigh.  
2. Almost all Christians do take some uncommanded significant Ceremon●●● Swearing to be lawful. The Ceremony mentioned by Paraeus ibid. as used in the Palatinate is such, of lifting up three fingers. The English Annotations tell you that the customs of countries' are very various in this point, yet most agree in adding some outward attestation of Action or gesture to words in taking of an Oath to make it better remembered and more regarded than bare words of Affirmation, Promise or imprecation. And Josephus (cited by Grotius) tells us 'twas then the custom among the Jews to swear by this Ceremony of putting the hand under the thigh.  
3. An Action of another part of the body is no more forbidden to express the mind by, than of the tongue: God never said, you shall no way express your minds in things Sacred or civil, but by the tongue: a change of the countenance may express it: a frown or a pleasant look (Index animi vultus.) Paul did lift up the hand to the Jews when he would speak for himself: Christ made as if he would have gone further, Luc. 24. Words are not natural signs, but invented & arbitrary in particulars, tho' the Power of speaking words so invented & learned be natural. If it be lawful to use significant word●, not commanded in Worship, it is lawful to use significant Actions (under due regulation) Therefore all the ancient Churches, without one Contradicter that ever I read of, did use many such. To stand up at the Creed is a significant expression of Consent, which not only all the Churches else, but the old Non-conformists never scrupled, nor do the present as far as I can learn: Whether to sit, stand or kneel, at singing Psalms, is left at liberty. To put of the hat, is a significant Ceremony or act in worshp, not commanded in itself, nor used of old for the same signification as now: and where covering the head does signify reverence, it is better than to be bare. God hath commanded us the expressing of consent, reverence, etc. but left the word, gesture or expressing sign to liberty He that affirmeth that God has left no other signification of our minds in sacred things to our liberty, but tied us to Words alone, must prove what he saith (which he must do against Scripture, against Nature, and against all the judgement and custom of all Christ's Churches and of the world.)  
III. If laying the hand on the Book, and Kissing it be unlawful for any special matter or manner forbidden more than other significant acts, it is for some of these Reasons in the Objections following; which now I will answer.  
I. Object. It savoureth of the Romish Superstition. Answ. 1. Not at all: Let him prove it that can. 2. Superstition is the feigning of things to be pleasing or displeasing to GOD which are not, and using or disusing them accordingly: whatever be the Etymology of the word (Superstitutum Cultus, or supra Statutum, etc.) it is certain that the common use of it among Heathens & Christians was for an erroneous undue fear of God, thinking this or that was displeasing or pleasing to Him to be done or to be avoided which was not so, but was the conceit of a frighted mistaking mind. Therefore to say that God is displeased with this signification of the mind, when it is not so, nor can be proved, is Superstition. And this is not the only instance of Satan's introducing Superstition under pretence of avoiding Superstition.  
3. The Sense of the Law is to be judged of by the Law, and by the notorious Doctrine & profession of the Law- makers and of the Land; which here renounceth the superstitious use of it. But I confess I was more afraid that the Papists had too much derogated from the Scripture, than given too much to it: and they profess they swear not by a Creature. as Paraeus in Gen. 24.2.  
II. Object. But Paraeus, in Gen. 24.2. saith, Non absque superstitione fit cum super Crucifixum aut Codicem Evangelii digitis impositis juratur, ut fit in Papatu. Answ. 1. But that same act which in Papatu is superstitious, because of superstitious conceits & ends, is not so in all others which have none such. 2. It●s ●o new thing to be quick in accusing our adversaries; but Paraeus addeth not a syllable of Proof; and if he had, it must have been such as touched not us, or else invalid.  
Object. III. Some good men have scrupled it. Answ. Ten thousand to one such have not scrupled it. 2. They are not our Gods nor Law. And if we avoid all as sin which some good men have scrupled, we shall make Superstition a great part of our Religion: And when, on the same grounds, we have but practised all as duty which some good men have taken for duty, we shall quite outgo the Papists.  
Object. iv Our Common-Law Commissions, that give authority to examine persons, direct it to be done supra Sacramenta sua per sancta Dei evangelia fideliter praestanda: And in the form of Administration in Ecclesiastical Courts the words are Ad sancta Dei Evangelii rite & legitime jurati: Whether these Forms do not infer that in their first use, (at least) persons either swore by the Evangelists or offended in the mode of swearing: And our Common Law calls it a Corporal Oath, from touching the Book.  
Answ. 1 To know the sense of our present Law, it is not necessary that we know the sense of the first users of the Form: For the Law is not now the King's Law tha● first m●de it, but the King's Law that now reigneth, and beareth his sense. 2. To ju●●●fie our obedience to a Law, it is not necessary that we prove every Phrase in that Law to be fitly expressed. 3. But examine it well, and try whether it be not also sit and laudable.  
1. There are three things conjoined in the Oaths in question. 1. A testimony Assertory or a promise, 2. An Oath, 3. An Imprecation. The Assertory Testimony is here the first thing intended; and the Oath and Imprecation are but as a means to make that Testimony or promise valid. 2. The published Doctrine of England, in the 39 Articles, the Book of Ordination, etc. is that the Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary to Salvation, as being God's Law or Rule of our Faith and Life. All our Duty to God is there commanded: All the Promises on which we hope are there contained; all the Punishments which the perjured or any sinner must feel and should fear, are there threatened. Therefore, 3. The Laying on the Hand and Kissing the Book, is an Action directly related to the Imprecation, and not to the Oath, but only by consequence, as the Imprecation is subservient to the Oath, as the Oath is to the Assertion. So that this is the plain Paraphrase of the whole, [I do believe that God the Ruler of all the world, is the Judge of secrets which are above man's Judgement, the Searcher of hearts, and the hater & avenger of Perjury, according to this His holy Word by which He governs us: And to this God I appeal as to the Truth of this my Testimony, consigning myself to lose all the benefit of his promises to the just, and to bear all the punishments here threatened to the Perjured, if I lie.]  
And what can be said more fitly, 1. To own the Protestant Doctrine that the Scripture is God's perfect Word: that the evil to be feared, and the good to be hoped for, is all there contained, and is all the fulfilling of that Word? 2 And to put the word in its due subordination to GOD? And our ordinary Form of Swearing showeth this [So help you God, and the Contents of this Book.] Whether you will call this, Swearing upon or by the Gospel, or call it a Corporal Oath, or a Spiritual Oath; is only de nomine, and is nothing to the matter thus truly described. Sacramentum signifieth the Oath itself, and Ad s●ncta Evangelia is a fit Phrase: or if supra Sacramenta signify the two Sacraments of the Gospel, it can mean no more than [As one that by the Reception of the Sacrament doth profess to believe this Gospel to be true, I do renounce the Benefits of it, If I lie:] And in this sense it has been some men's custom to receive the Sacrament when they would solemnly Swear.  
Object: V Some seem to object against Kissing the Book, as having the greater appearance of giving too much to it, or putting some adoration on it; and because this Ceremony of kissing is held to be of later date than laying on the hand.  
Answ. The Ceremony signifieth that I love & approve the Gospel, and place the hope of my salvation in it. And the public Doctrine of the Kingdom, before cited, showeth as a full Exposition what we ascribe to it. But as some scrupulous Brethren in Scotland gratify the Papists by rejecting the Oath of Supremacy, which is the most thorny hedge against them, and this while they cry out against Popery; so others would gratify the Papists, by suggesting that we give too much to the Bible, and adore it; when the very sum of England's Protestantism, is their just ascribing to the Holy Scriptures its Sufficiency as to all things necessary to Salvation. Thus Satan undoeth still by overdoing.  
Object. VI But Laying on the hand, and kissing the Book, seem of the same nature with the Cross in Baptism, & other significant ceremonies; and an Oath is part of the Worship of God; therefore not to be taken with these ceremonies, or else will seem to justify the other.  
Answ. 1. Significant Words, Gestures or Actions are not therefore evil, because they are significant, (unless bruitishness be a virtue) nor because any call them by the name of Ceremonies (else that name might be put upon any thing to deprive us of our liberty). Therefore I can judge of no Ceremony by that general name alone, till it be named itself in specie. 2. And of the Cross, there are these notorious differences in the case: 1. The Cross is an Image used in God's Worship: though not a permanent, yet a transient Image, and used as an Image of the Cross of Christ, though but in water or oil. And God hath more specially forbidden images used in His Worship, than He hath done a professing significant word, gesture or action, which is no image, nor used as such. 2. The Cross seems to be a third Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace, while it is used as a Symbol of Christianity, and a dedicating sign, (as the Cannon-calleth it) by which before the Church, there is made a solemn self-Obligation as sacramentally, to Renounce the Devil, the world & the flesh, and manfully to fight under Christ's banner, etc. Implying our trust and hope in Christ crucified for the benefits of His death. So that if it be not a complete third Sacrament, it hath so much of that which is proper to a Sacrament, that for my part, I dare not use it. And as I think the King would not take it well, when he has made the Star the Badge of the Knights of the Garter, if any Subject should presume to make another Symbolum Ordinis (though yet many a significant Gesture or Act may be used without offence); So I fear Christ would not take it well of me if I presume to make or use another Symbol or Tessera of Christianity. But what's this to things or Gestures significant of no such kind? You see then the difference of these Cases.  
But if the Cross could be proved as harmless as the Swearing Ceremony, I would be for the Cross, and not against the laying the hand on the Book and Kissing it: For 1. I am not of their mind that form their judgement of other particulars to suit with their preconceived opinions of things of the same rank or quality; nor make the interest of my former conceptions, to be the measure of my after judging. 2. Nor do I think it so great an honour to be strict in my opinions, as dishonour to be superstitious, and to add to God's Law, by saying that [He forbiddeth what He doth not, or to be affectedly singular in denying lawful things, with a Touch not, taste not, handle not, etc. Nor do I esteem him to be the wisest, best, or holiest person who is narrowest or strictest in his Opinions, but who is rightest; nor him that maketh most things to be sins, but him that committeth least sin, which is such indeed; nor him that maketh most Laws to himself and others, but him that best obeyeth God's Laws.  
Quest. 3. May one that scrupleth thus swearing himself, yet Commissiond, give an Oath thus to another that scrupleth it not?  
Answ. If the thing be (as is proved) lawful, his scruple will not make him innocent in neglecting the duty of his place. 2. If the Substance of the Oath were lawful, and only the Mode or Ceremony were sinful (as suspected), then 1. If the Commissioner must himself particularly command that mode, it were unlawful for him to do it. 2. But if he only command, and give the Oath as an Oath, leaving the Mode without his Approbation or Command, to the Taker & the Law, he may so give the Oath. And Thus Christians in all ages have taken it for Lawful to make Covenants even with Infidel's and Idolaters, and to take a Turks Oath by Mahomet, when it is only the O●th that we demand, and the Mode is his own, which we had rather be without, and give no Approbation of. And if a King may thus demand an Infidel's or an Idolater's Oath, (as God Himself doth men's duty, when He knows they will sin in doing it) much more may one do so, in case of a doubtful Ceremony, which he is neither the Author nor approver of. But I think this in question is lawful, fit, and laudable.  
Quest. 4. How far is swearing by Creatures a sin?  
Answ. It is just like the case of Worshipping Images or by Images: He that worshippeth an Image or any Creature as God, and ultimately terminateth his worship in it, doth commit direct and full Idolatry; which is so much the greater sin, by how much the base the thing is which he idolizeth. But if he maketh the Image or Creature but his medium of that Worship which should be immediately offered to God, in whom it is ultimately terminated, than it is not gross Idolatry, but it is false and forbidden worship of the true GOD: but if the Creature be made but the Medium of that Worship which God would have offered Him by a Medium, than it is lawful so to use or worship it: (As to honour and admire God as appearing in His Works; to give that Worship, or Honour to our Parents or Rulers as His Officers, which is ultimately terminated in God: just so it is in the case of Swearing: for Swearing is a part of the Worship of God. He that sweareth by any Creature as a God, or as the avenger of those that by falsehood elude the Judgement of man, doth commit Idolatry in it: as Julian did when he swore by the Sun, (which he praised in his Orations, and worshipped, as God). But he that only sweareth so by a Creature, as to intent God ultimately, as the witness & avenger, but yet so as that the creature only is named, or so named as hath an appearance of Idolatry, or tends to entice the mind from God doth swear by the true God intentionally, but in a sinful manner. But he that directly sweareth by God (upon a just call), and by the creature (or nameth the creature rather) but in a just and clear and inoffensive subordination to God, is excusable. So we use to lay our hands on the Bible, and thus to swear, So help me God, and the Contents of this Book. Thus on great occasions many good men in their Writings to clear themselves from some calumny have said, I call God, and angels, and men to witness. Many in naming creatures intent rather a Curse than a Swearing by the creature: as [if it be not so, let God destroy me by this Fire, or this Water, etc.]  
FINIS.