Lawful Oaths
May Christians take oaths? May the magistrate require them?
Settled clearly
Background
Christ's words 'Swear not at all' (Matt. 5:34, James 5:12) had been taken by Anabaptists and (later) Quakers as a categorical prohibition: no Christian may take any oath, judicial or otherwise. The Reformed had always held the contrary: lawful oaths, taken in truth, judgement, and seriousness, are not only permissible but are an act of religious worship. The 1640s saw the Quakers begin (George Fox first preached in 1647); the Solemn League and Covenant itself was a national oath; and magistrate-required oaths (the Engagement, the Oath of Allegiance, judicial oaths) were politically central.
The Assembly’s handling
WCF XXII.1-7 affirms the lawfulness of oaths in great detail. XXII.1: 'A lawful oath is a part of religious worship, wherein, upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calleth God to witness what he asserteth or promiseth.' XXII.2: oaths are to be by 'the name of God only.' XXII.3: oaths must be taken in truth, judgement, and weight; not lightly, not falsely. XXII.4: oaths bind even when sworn to a person of false religion. XXII.5-7 handle vows similarly. Thomas Gataker was the chapter's principal drafter; his learning in classical and rabbinical sources made him the natural choice for the locus.
Parties
The Reformed pro-oath consensus
Lawful oaths, taken in truth, judgement, and seriousness, are a part of religious worship. Christ's prohibition of 'swearing at all' is directed at vain and irreverent swearing, not at lawful judicial and covenantal oaths.
- Thomas Gataker (1574–1654)
- Anthony Tuckney (1599–1670)
- Edward Reynolds (1599–1676)
- Edmund Calamy the Elder (1600–1666)
The Anabaptist/Quaker absolute prohibition (rejected; mostly outside the Assembly)
All oaths are forbidden by Christ's command (Matt. 5:34, James 5:12). The Christian's yea is to be yea and nay nay; oaths are an accommodation to sinful human society that Christ has abolished. George Fox and the early Quakers.
Confessional language
WCF XXII.1: 'A lawful oath is a part of religious worship, wherein, upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calleth God to witness what he asserteth or promiseth, and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he sweareth.'
Ontology placement
This crux bears on the following attribute of the Westminster ontology. The Westminster baseline value is marked WCF.
VIII · Civil & Last Things · Oaths & Marriage
Legacy
The Quaker refusal of oaths produced extensive 17th- and 18th-century legal accommodation — the Affirmation Acts of 1696, 1721, and 1722 in England, and corresponding statutes in colonial America — that allowed Quakers (and later other scrupling Christians) to substitute affirmations for oaths. The Westminster doctrine of lawful oaths underlies the judicial oath system inherited by the common-law world.