N29748:26
Some remarks, on a pretended answer, to a discourse concerning the Common-Prayer worship. With…
Some remarks, on a pretended answer, to a discourse concerning the Common-Prayer worship. With an exhortation to the churches in New-England, to hold fast the profession of their faith without wavering. / By Increase Mather, D.D. ; [Five lines of quotations]
Boston: printed for Nath. Hillier, 1713
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
As for the Second Question in the Discourse, about Swearing by the Book; why should any Reply be made to such an Answerer, as maintains, that when the Papists in Swearing Pray to the holy Evangelists to help them, they are not guilty of Idolatry? I shall at present only say further, that Athanasius in Swearing, would not use any other Rite besides that of lifting up the Hand to Heaven. And the Martyr Mr. William Thorp, refused to comply with the usual Mode of Swearing; and he says, that Chrysostom was against the Book Oath, as he styles it: He thus Argues; If I touch the Book, the meaning of that Ceremony is nothing else but that I Swear by it; whenas it is not Lawful to Swear by any Creature, Vid. Fox Martyrol. Vol. I. Pag. 705. In Scotland, and in other Reformed Churches, that Ceremony is not used; and in our own Courts of Admiralty, another Form of Swearing is frequently practised. Many in England many Years since, were Scrupulous about that Mode in Swearing. In the Year 1649, in the Oath which was Enjoined on Mayors and other Magistrates, a Proviso was inserted as to the Mode of Swearing, that •o Doubting Consciences might not be Ensnared. ⟨p. 20⟩Vid. Scobel's Collections, Chap. 51. This Mode of Swearing is at best, a Superstitious piece of Judaism. For the Jews who indulge themselves in Swearing by Creatures, will frequently Swear [Bethorah] by the Law, as is declared by their R. David, on Isa. 8.20. And at this Day, in Swearing they •se to lay their Hands on the Books of Moses; and suppose that an Oath has no Obligation, that it is no Oath except Sworn on the Book of the Law. Thence is the Custom of laying the Hand on the Evangelists in Swearing derived to us; as Drusius, and other Learned Men have Conjectured. Vid. Drus. de Trib. Sect. Lib. II. Cap. 16. p. 109. Leusden Philol. Hebr. p.423. I might have mentioned several other Martyrs and Eminent Confessors, who would not Conform to this Mode of Swearing. Nor is there any Law to Enforce it, only Custom.
As for the Second Question in the Discourse, about Swearing by the Book; why should any Reply be made to such an Answerer, as maintains, that when the Papists in Swearing Pray to the holy Evangelists to help them, they are not guilty of Idolatry? I shall at present only say further, that Athanasius in Swearing, would not use any other Rite besides that of lifting up the Hand to Heaven. And the Martyr Mr. William Thorp, refused to comply with the usual Mode of Swearing; and he sayes, that Chrysostom was against the Book Oathe, as he styles it: He thus Argues; If I touch the Book, the meaning of that Ceremony is nothing else but that I Swear by it; whenas it is not Lawful to Swear by any Creature, Vid. Fox Martyrol. Vol. I. Pag. 705. In Scotland, and in other Reformed Churches, that Ceremony is not used; and in our own Courts of Admiralty, another Form of Swearing is frequently practised. Many in England many Years since, were Scrupulous about that Mode in Swearing. In the Year 1649, in the Oath which was Enjoyned on Mayors and other Magistrates, a Proviso was inserted as to the Mode of Swearing, that o Doubting Consciences might not be Ensnared.