"Mittimus hic, principibus Christianis, ut ex historiis satis obviis liquet, solennia fuisse et peculiaria juramenta, ut per vultum sancti Lucæ, per pedem Christi, per sanctum hunc vel illum, ejusmodi alia nimis crebra: Inolevit hero tandem, ut quemadmodum Pagani sacris ac mysteriis aliquo suis aut tactis aut præsentibus jurare solebant, ita solenniora Christianorum juramenta fierent, aut tactis sacrosanctis evangeliis, aut inspectis, aut in eorum præsentia manu ad pectus amota, sublata aut protensa; atque is corporaliter seu personaliter juramentum præstari dictum est, ut ab juramentis per epistolam, aut in scriptis solummodo præstitis distingueretur, inde in vulgi passim ore."
Lord Coke tells us, in the passage quoted at p. 364., that this was called the corporal oath, because the witness "toucheth with his hand some part of the Holy Scripture;" but the better opinion seems to be, that it was so called from the ancient custom of laying the hands upon the corporale, or cloth which covered the sacred elements, by which the most solemn oath was taken in Popish times.
As to the form of kissing the book, I am inclined to think that it is not of earlier date than the latter part of the sixteenth century, and that it was first prescribed as part of the ceremony of taking the oaths of allegiance and supremacy. In the Harl. Misc., vol. vi. p. 282. (edit. 1810), is an account of the trial of Margaret Fell and George Fox, for refusing to take the oath of allegiance, followed by "An Answer to Bishop Lancelot Andrewe's Sermon concerning Swearing." At p 298., Fox brings forward instances of conscientious scruples among Christians in former times, respecting the taking of oaths. He says:
"Did not the Pope, when he had got up over the churches, give forth both oath and curse, with bell, book, and candle? And was not the ceremony of his oath, to lay three fingers a-top of the book, to signify the Trinity; and two fingers under the book, to signify damnation of body and soul if they sware falsely? And was not there a great number of people that would not swear, and suffered great persecution, as read the Book of Martyrs but to Bonner's days? And it is little above an hundred years since the Protestants got up; and they gave forth the oath of allegiance, and the oath of supremacy: the one was to deny the Pope's supremacy, and the other to acknowledge the kings of England; so we need not tell to you of their form, and show you the ceremony of the oath; it saith, 'Kiss the book;' and the book saith 'Kiss the Son,' which saith 'Swear not at all.'"
Still the laying of the hand on the book seems to have been an essential form; for, during the trial, when the oath was offered to Margaret Fell, "the clerk held out the book, and bid her pull off her glove, and lay her hand on the book" (H. M., p. 285.). And directly after, when the oath had been read to Fox, the following scene is described:
"'Give him the book,' said they; and so a man that stood by him held up the book, and said, 'Lay your hand on the book.'
"Geo. Fox. 'Give me the book in my hand.' Which set them all a-gazing, and as in hope he would have sworn."
And it appears from the case of Omychund v. Barker, that, at that time, the usual form was by laying the right hand on the book, and kissing it afterwards (1 Atk. 42.). It seems not improbable that Paley's suggestion, in his Moral Philosophy, vol. i. p. 192. (10th edit.), may be correct. He says:
"The kiss seems rather an act of reverence to the contents of the book, as, in the Popish ritual, the priest kisses the gospel before he reads it, than any part of the oath."
The Query respecting the Welsh custom I must leave to those who are better informed respecting the judicial forms of that country; merely suggesting whether the practice alluded to by your correspondent may not originally have had a meaning similar to that of the three fingers on the book, and two under, as described by Fox in the passage above quoted.
Erica.