1. It is so by the true, proper, and unquestionable intent of the Law by which it is required: And hence it must needs be so interpretatively of every one that useth it in compliance with that Law. It is a Truth beyond suspicion, that a Man's actions are not interpretable, according to his own private sense and pretended meaning, but according to the common usage in which such actions are taken, and for Men to pretend to another meaning, is practical Equivocation. The Primitive Christians knew, that to cast Frankincense into the Fire upon an Idol's Altar, would be Interpretative sacrificing to that ⟨p. 6⟩Idol, let their reserved meaning be what it would, and therefore they refused to do it. He therefore that complies with any thing required in the Law, is truly reputed by all Men to comply with the Law in the true and plain meaning of it. Now that this is the indisputable sense of the Law, is evident; for what else is Swearing by the Book but such? If we consult the Statute-Law, possibly there is no clearer mention of this appeal there, than what is in the Oath of Supremacy, which in so many words joins the Invocation of God, and swearing by the Contents of the Book. If we look to the Common Law, let all old Presidents speak, which tell us that it is done Per sacra Dei Evangelia, by the Holy Gospels; and this cannot intend only a signification of the Persons swearing, and their consent, but expressly declares an appeal to the Book, which was never appointed by God to be a Ceremony, much less an Object of my Appeal. And if we look to the Canon Law, whence it borrows its Original, none need to be ignorant that it was intended to put a religious respect on the Book, by the Authors of it, whose very Principles plead the justification of a Religious Worship due to some Creatures.
1. It is so by the true, proper, and unquestionable intent of the Law by which it is required: And hence it must needs be so interpretatively of every one that useth it in complyance with that Law. It is a Truth beyond suspicion, that a Man's actions are not interpretable, according to his own private sense and pretended meaning, but according to the common usage in which such actions are taken, and for Men to pretend to another meaning, is practical Equivocation. The Primitive Christians knew, that to cast Frankincense into the Fire upon an Idol's Altar, would be Interpretative sacrificing to that ⟨p. 6⟩Idol, let their reserved meaning be what it would, and therefore they refused to do it. He therefore that complies with any thing required in the Law, is truly reputed by all Men to comply with the Law in the true and plain meaning of it. Now that this is the indisputable sence of the Law, is evident; for what else is Swearing by the Book but such? If we consult the Statute-Law, possibly there is no clearer mention of this appeal there, than what is in the Oath of Supremacy, which in so many words joyns the Invocation of God, and swearing by the Contents of the Book. If we look to the Common Law, let all old Presidents speak, which tell us that it is done Per sacra Dei Evangelia, by the Holy Gospels; and this cannot intend only a signification of the Persons swearing, and their consent, but expresly declares an appeal to the Book, which was never appointed by God to be a Ceremony, much less an Object of my Appeal. And if we look to the Canon Law, whence it borrows its Original, none need to be ignorant that it was intended to put a religious respect on the Book, by the Authors of it, whose very Principles plead the justification of a Religious Worship due to some Creatures.
