BY PERCY T. MAGAN.
(Continued.)
[This article is No. 28 in the series entitled "A Review of Sunday Legislation in Century Nineteen," but it will be of equal interest to those who have not read preceding numbers.—Ed. S. of T.]
AGAIN, the General Court of Massachusetts Bay passed a law requiring every male sixteen years of age and over to take the "freeman's oath." This oath was one of allegiance to the general court. The general court was Puritan—essentially Puritan—in its composition and sentiment. The whole aim of that body was to enforce the Puritan belief throughout the colony. Therefore to take an oath of allegiance to the general court was to take an oath against the Government of England—against the charter. This is made very clear by no less important a personage than John Cotton himself:—
The magistrates and other members of the general court, upon intelligence of some episcopal and malignant practices against the country, made an order of court to take trial of the fidelity of the people, not by imposing upon them, but by offering to them an oath of fidelity, that in case any should refuse to take it, they might not betrust them with places of public charge and command.
Now, then, what was the reason for offering the oath?—Oh, the "magistrates and other members" (that is, the Puritan ministers) had received "intelligence of some episcopal and malignant practices against the country"! But episcopacy was a synonym for the Church of England. And that was the church they had virtually sworn to uphold in their charter. Lest there should be any question in regard to the position I have taken upon this matter, I append the "freeman's oath" in full:—
I, A. B., being by God's providence an inhabitant and freeman within the jurisdiction of this commonweal, do freely acknowledge myself to be subject to the government thereof, and therefore do here swear, by the great and dreadful name of the ever living God, that I will be true and faithful to the same, and will accordingly yield assistance and support thereunto with my person and estate as in equity I am bound, and I will also truly endeavor to maintain and preserve all the liberties and privileges thereof, submitting myself to the wholesome laws and orders made and established by the same. And, further, that I will not plot nor practice any evil against it, nor consent to any that shall do so, but will truly discover and reveal the same to lawful authority now here established, for the speedy preventing thereof. Moreover, I do solemnly bind myself in the sight of God, that when I shall be called to give my voice touching any such matters of this State, wherein freemen are to deal, I will give my vote and suffrage as I shall judge in mine own conscience may best conduce and tend to the public weal of the body, without respect of persons, or favor of any man; so help me God in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Such was the oath. John Cotton said that it was only "offered," not "imposed." This may have been the case at one time; but when the assembly met at Cambridge, later about a year (March 4, 1635), they enacted as follows:—
It is ordered that every man of or above the age of sixteen years, who hath been, or shall hereafter be, resident within this jurisdiction, by the space of six months (as well servants as others) and not enfranchised, shall take the oath of residence before the governor, deputy governor, or two of the next assistants, who shall have power to convent him for that purpose, and, upon his refusal, to bind him over to the next court of assistants, and, upon his refusal the second time, to be punished at the discretion of the court.
It is ordered that the freeman's oath shall be given to every man of or above the age of sixteen years, the clause for election of magistrates only excepted.
Let the candid reader judge from this whether the oath was only "offered," or whether it was "imposed."
It is morally certain that this oath was meant to act as an antidote to certain measures that were at that very time being proposed and passed in England. The oath is found upon the records of the general assembly, May 14, 1634. Upon April 28, 1634, just sixteen days previously, King Charles had given a commission to Archbishop Laud and five other councillors, ordering them to enforce episcopacy in the colonies. The two measures were just sixteen days apart. Without a doubt the governor and assistants of the Massachusetts Bay Company were not aware what the king had done, when they fixed the form of the freeman's oath. That is not saying that they had not intimations of what he was going to do. But certain it is that they did know what he had done when, in March, 1635, they made the freeman's oath obligatory upon all, with a penalty to be fixed at the discretion of the court. So, by this oath, they were deliberately plotting against the laws of England, and trying to offset the plans of the Government of England, which, according to their charter, they were bound to uphold. Not only were they bound by their names in the charter, but they were bound by the oath which they had taken to support the crown of England, which oath I very much doubt they ever had the slightest intention of keeping. So much for the value of the oaths of the leading Puritans of Massachusetts Bay.
I said that by the charter they were bound to make no laws contrary to the laws and ordinances of England. This is stipulated, not only once in the charter, but three times, so that by no just method of construction can it ever be said to have been by mere form or accident that those words were in the charter. They were in it three times; they are in it three times to this very day in every authentic copy of it; they are in it as immortal witnesses of the perjury and falsehood of the Puritans.
Roger Williams, to his everlasting praise be it spoken, refused to take the freeman's oath. He refused to take it because it would virtually transfer his allegiance from the Government of England to the church brethren of the colony. He refused to take it because it would contravene the stipulations of the charter, which he, along with all the rest, was sworn to uphold. He refused to take the oath because he was the friend of chartered rights and constitutions, and the enemy of tyranny and despotism. He refused to take the oath for another and still a grander reason, as stated by Professor Knowles:—
"To this oath, under such circumstances, Mr. Williams, as a friend of liberty, was opposed. He would not renounce an oath which he had taken, and substitute another which bound him to obey whatever laws the magistrates might deem wholesome. The reason assigned for the new oath, moreover, was to guard against "episcopal and malignant practices." This gave it the appearance of a law to restrain liberty of conscience.
So much for the intentions and honesty of purpose of the Puritans from the standpoint of the charter. It will now be in order to take their own writings upon the subject of religious liberty. They have left us abundant testimony expressive of their ideas. Hearken to the words of Samuel Willard, writing in 1681:—
I perceive they are mistaken in the design of our first Planters, whose business was not Toleration; but were professed Enemies of it, and could leave the World professing they died no Libertines. Their business was to settle, and (as much as in them lay) secure Religion to Posterity, according to that way which they believed was of God.
It is thus that the Rev. Nathaniel Ward delivers himself:—
My heart hath naturally detested foure things. . . . Tolerations of divers Religions, or of one Religion in segregant shapes:—He that willingly assents to the last, if he examines his heart by daylight, his conscience will tell him, he is either an Atheist, or an Heretique, or an Hypocrite, or at best a captive to some lust. Poly-piety is the greatest impiety in the world. . . . I lived in a city where a Papist preached in one Church, a Lutheran in another, a Calvinist in a third; a Lutheran one part of the day, a Calvinist the other, in the same pulpit. The Religion of that place was but motley and meagre, their affections Leopardlike. . . . Concerning Tolerations, I may further assert, That Persecution of True Religion, and Toleration of false, are the Jannes and Jambres ["Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth; men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith." 2 Tim. 3: 8.] to the Kingdom of Christ, whereof the last is farre the worst. . . . It is said that men ought to have liberty of their Conscience, and that it is Persecution to debarre them of it. I can rather stand amazed than reply to this; it is an astonishment to think that the brains of men should be parboy'd in such impious ignorance.