IV. Object. Laying on the hand, and kissing the book, seem of the same nature with the cross in baptism, and 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 brutishness be a virtue); nor because any call them by the name of ceremonies (else that name might be put on any thing by an enemy 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. Of the cross in baptism, see my "Disputations of Church Government," of Ceremonies, written long ago. 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 seemeth 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 canon calleth it) by which, before the church, there is made a solemn self-obligation, as sacramentally, to renounce the devil, the world, and the flesh, and manfully to fight under Christ's banner, as his faithful servants and soldiers, to our life's end; 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, (like the sacramentum militare, whence the name came into the church,) that for my part, I dare not use it, though I presume not to censure those that do, nor to condemn all other uses of the cross, which the ancients abounded in, as sudden, particular, professing signs, much below this solemn covenanting use. And as I think the king would not take it well, when he hath made the star the badge of the knights of the garter, if any subject will 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, especially with so much of a covenanting sacramental nature. But what is this to things or gestures significant of no such kind? You see then the difference of these cases.
But if you were able to prove the cross 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 judgment 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," &c. 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. 1. May one that scrupleth thus swearing himself, yet, commissioned, give an oath thus to another that scrupleth it not?
Answ. 1. 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 and the law, he may so give the oath: and thus christians in all ages have taken it for lawful to make covenants even with infidels and idolaters, and to take a Turk's oath by Mahomet, when it is only the oath 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 idolater's oath, (as God himself doth men's duty, when he knoweth that 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.
How God's name is taken in vain.
III. As to the case of taking God's name in vain, which for brevity I join with swearing, it is done, 1. Either in the grossest and most heinous sort; 2. Or in a lower sort. 1. The grossest sort of taking God's name in vain, is by perjury; or calling him in for witness to a lie. For among the Jews, vanity and a lie, were words frequently taken in the same signification. 2. But the lower sort of taking God's name in vain, is when it is used lightly, unreverently, contemptuously, jestingly, or without just cause; and in these also there is profaneness and a very great sin, which is aggravated according to the degree of the contempt or profanation.[493] It is a great sin unreverently in common talk to make a by-word of saying, O Lord, or O God, or O Jesus, or God help us, or Lord have mercy on us, or God send this or that, or any way to take God's name in vain; but to use it in jeers and scorns at religion, or make play-books or stage-plays with such profane contemptuous jeers, is one of the greatest villanies that man's tongue can be guilty of against his Maker. (Of which anon.)
IV. Direct. I. For the avoiding of all this profaneness in swearing and taking the name of God in vain, the first direction must be this general one, to use all the directions given in chap. i. for a wicked man's attaining true conversion; and withal to observe how great an evidence this sin is of a graceless, ungodly, miserable soul. For it is supposed to be an ordinary or frequent sin, and therefore to have no effectual principle in the heart which is against it; and therefore to have the principal room in the will; and therefore to be unrepented of (as to any saving, renewing repentance): if thou hadst any true grace, it would teach thee to fear and honour God more: to make light of God is inconsistent with godliness, if it be in a predominant degree; for they are directly contrary.
Direct. II. Get thy heart sensible of the intrinsic evil of thy sin. It would never be so easily and familiarly committed by thee, if thou didst not think it small. That thou mayst know it, consider of these following aggravations.[494]
1. Consider who that God is whom thou abusest.[495] Is he not the great and terrible Majesty, that made the world, and upholdeth it, and ordereth it by his will? the Governor and Judge of all the earth, infinitely excelling the sun in glory? a God most holy, and in holiness to be mentioned? And wilt thou make a by-word of his dreadful name? Wilt thou profanely swear by this holy name? and use the name of thy God as thou wouldst scarce use the name of thy father or thy king? Wilt thou unreverently and contemptuously toss it like a foot-ball? Dost thou know no more difference between God and man? Know God, and thou wilt sooner tremble at his name, than thus unreverently abuse it.