The Oath of a Freeman
Text taken from Charles Evans, “Oaths of Allegiance in Colonial New England,” Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society, n.s., 31 (April 13–October 19, 1921): 394. The text is complete and unaltered.
May 14, 1634
This is the oath that replaced the original 1631 version [9], and a comparison of the two is instructive. The earlier version reads as though it creates a subject, whereas this oath, at least in part because it rests on individual consent freely given, reads as though it creates a citizen with political rights and duties. Movement from the mentality of a subject to that of a citizen is one major aspect of a diverging political culture that will by 1776 make Americans and Englishmen political strangers.
Att a Genrall Courte, holden att Boston, May 14, 1634.
It was agreed & ordered, that the former oath of ffreemen shalbe revoked, soe farr as it is dissonant from the oath of ffreemen herevnder written, & that those that receaved the former oath shall stand bound noe further thereby, to any intent or purpose, then this newe oath tyes those that nowe takes ye same.
the oath of a freeman
I. a.b., being, by Gods providence, an inhabitant & ffreeman within the jurisdiccon of this comonweale, doe freely acknowledge my selfe to be subiect to the govermt thereof, & therefore doe heere sweare, by the greate & dreadfull name of the eurlyving God, that I wilbe true & faithfull to the same, & will accordingly yeilde assistance & support therevnto, with my pson & estate, as in equity I am bound, & will also truely indeavr to mainetaine & preserue all the libertyes & previlidges thereof, submitting my selfe to the wholesome lawes & orders made & established by the same; and furthr, that I will not plott nor practise any evill aginst it, nor consent to any that shall soe doe, but will timely discovery & reveale the same to lawfull aucthority nowe here established, for the speedy preventing thereof. Moreouer, I doe solemnly binde myselfe in the sight of God, that when I shalbe called to giue my voice touching any such matter of this state, wherein ffreemen are to deale I will giue my vote & suffrage, as I shall iudge in myne owne conscience may best conduce & tend to the publique weale of the body, without respect of psons, or favr of any man. Soe helpe mee God in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Further, it is agreed that none but the Genall Court hath power to chuse and admitt freemen.
Comments
These early documents are very instructive in understanding the foundations of our country. We referred to them often when we were homeschooling our children.
In the 1600's they were required to be a landowner/freeman to take part in the political process. At that time it required, at least in Massachusetts Bay Colony, to be a member of the Church of England. The unfortunate result of that was that many people joined the church for economic, political reasons, thereby weakening the church from a spiritual standpoint.
The idea of freedom of religion was that the state could not require membership in the state church. It was not to silence the voice of Christians, but rather to give them a voice without regulation by the state. Thomas Jefferson's letter in early Virginia that is used today to push Christians out of the marketplace of ideas, was in behalf of his cousins who were Baptists, that they should be free to worship outside of the state church.
I would submit that if we are not careful, we will lose true freedom by allowing the voices of atheism to in effect, become the "state church." That happened in Germany under Hitler, and is happening even now in China, which has a state sanctioned church loyal to communism, but persecutes the house churches putting the pastors in prison for their faith.
We are standing at a point in history that can cause us to panic, or drive us to our knees. I believe the latter is our only hope.
Charlotte M.
Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists:
Here is the complete text of the letter from Thomas Jefferson that contains and defines the famous phrase, "wall of separation between church and state."
To Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge and Others, a Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut
January 1, 1802
GENTLEMAN,
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.
If it was good enough for my forefathers ,, it"s good enough for me !!!
Thanks for sharing !!