II. As to the case of swearing by creatures, how far it is sinful; 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;[491] which is so much the greater sin, by how much the baser the thing is which he idolizeth. But if he make the image or creature but his medium of that worship which should be immediately offered to God, in whom it is ultimately terminated, then 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, then 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 and rulers as his officers, which is ultimately terminated in God). Just so is it 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 judgment of man, doth commit idolatry in it;[492] as Julian did when he swore by the sun (which he praised by his orations and worshipped as God). But he that only sweareth so by a creature, as to intend God ultimately as the witness and avenger, but yet so as that the creature only is named, or so named as hath an appearance of idolatry, or tendeth to entice the mind from God, or scandalously to obscure his honour, or in any other forbidden way, 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 intend 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, &c.
Quest. Is it lawful to lay hands on the book and kiss it in swearing as is done in England?
Resp. To take an oath as imposed in England with laying the hand on the Bible and kissing it, is not unlawful.
Proved 1. That which is not forbidden by God is lawful (before God). But so to take an oath is not forbidden by God——Therefore, &c. The minor will be sufficiently proved by disproving all the pretences of a prohibition. The major needeth no proof.
2. If it be forbidden 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 matter or manner. But it is not forbidden in any of these respects; therefore not at all.
I. Not as an act not commanded in worship; for a quatenus ad omne valet consequentia, then all acts in worship not commanded would be unlawful, which is false: for, 1. The acts used in swearing, Gen. xxiv. 2; xiv. 22; Apoc. x. 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 and 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. Abraham's swearing by lifting up the hand, (and so the angels, Apoc. x.) 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. 2. Because it is mentioned, as Paræus and other commentators note, as some accustomed rite, and so dependeth not on any particular precept to Abraham 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 take some uncommanded significant ceremony in swearing to be lawful. The ceremony mentioned by Paræus, ibid. as used in the Palatinate, is such, of lifting up three fingers, Hodie nos juramus, digitis tribus dextræ sublatis, invocantes vindicem S. Trinitatem. 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 it was then the custom among the Jews to swear by this ceremony of putting the hand under the thigh (whether in token of subjection, or because it was the place of the sword, the instrument of revenge, as Grotius and others, or in expectation of the promised seed, as the fathers thought). And the case of Joseph's adjuration shows it. Vid. Perer. in Gen. xiv. and xxiv.
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, Luke xxiv. Words are not natural signs, but invented and arbitrary in particulars, though the power of speaking words so invented and learned be natural. If it be lawful to use significant words, not commanded in worship, it is lawful to use significant actions (under due regulation). Therefore all the ancient churches, without one contradictor that ever I read of, did use many such. Though Augustine, Ep. ad Januar. sadly complaineth that then they were grown to an oppressive number; yet he never speaketh against the thing itself. 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 off the hat is a significant ceremony or act in worship, not commanded in itself, nor used of old for the same signification as now. And where the covering of the head doth signify reverence, it is better than to be bare. In one country custom maketh standing up, in another sitting and hanging down the head, in another kneeling, in another prostration, to be the sign of reverence, which accordingly may be used in God's service. When covenants between God and the people are renewed, consent may lawfully be expressed either by standing up or by holding up the hand, (by which suffrages in things sacred were used to be given,) or by subscribing, or by voice. For God hath commanded us the expressing of consent, reverence, &c., but left the word, gesture, or expressing sign to liberty. He that affirmeth that God hath 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 judgment 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 the reasons named by you: which now I will answer.