Oaths of Allegiance in Colonial New England

by Charles Evans

Another Oath, drawn up in England, also claims a place here because it was sometimes voluntarily taken by settlers in the New England Colonies. In the year 1655, during the Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell, an Oath, probably similar to that prescribed by the Rump Parliament to the Council of State, was enacted which was known as:

The Oath of Abjuration

I do hereby swear that I do renounce the pretended title of Charles Stuart, and the whole line of the late King James; and of any other person, as a single person pretending, or which shall pretend to the crown or government of these nations of England Scotland and Ireland, or any of them; and that I will, by the grace and assistance of Almighty God, be true, faithful and constant to the Parliament, and Commonwealth; and will oppose the bringing in, or setting up any single person or House of Lords, and every of them, in this Commonwealth.

Soon after the Restoration, Charles the Second, by Proclamation commanded that the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance be tendered to all persons disaffected to the Government and, in case of refusal, that they were to be prosecuted under the Statute of the 7th of James. During the reign of his Roman Catholic successor, James the Second, the Oath of Supremacy was allowed to lapse, and the Oath of Allegiance, only, was in full force in the Colonies, up to the publication of his declaration of liberty of conscience for all denominations in England and Scotland, in 1687–1688, which sealed his doom.

These preliminaries are necessary to a full understanding of our subject which naturally begins, in point of time, with the settlement

In New Plymouth Colony.

Strictly speaking, Plymouth was not a New England Colony. It was without a Charter, and the functions of its government were those of a Corporation. The power of the Oath of Allegiance their leaders had assented to always seemed to hang over them, and paralyze the initiative they should have taken. Their attempts to increase their circumscribed boundaries at New Plymouth were futile; and, in the case of their attempted settlement in Maine, disastrous both to the business reputation of their leaders, and to the Corporation. They could spare neither the men nor the means from the parent settlement to form permanent settlements elsewhere. They seemed doomed to failure. And yet hardly that, when we consider the impress upon our Nation made by their sterling qualities of mind and heart, their patience and fortitude under severe trials, the hopes and ambition of their teachings, and their never-failing trust in God’s Providence. These high qualities still animate and live in the great and growing number who proudly claim their ancestry from the Pilgrims at New Plymouth.

Combination for Foundation of Government
known as
The Mayflower Compact

In y^e name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwriten, the loyall subjects of our dread soveraigne Lord, King James, by y^e grace of God, of Great Britaine, Franc, & Ireland, king, defender of y^e faith, &c. haveing undertaken, for y^e glorie of God, and advancement of y^e Christian faith, and honour of our king and countrie, a voyage to plant y^e first colonie in y^e Northerne parts of Virginia, doe by these presents solemnly & mutualy in y^e presence of God, and one of another, covenant & combine our selves togeather into a civill body politick, for our better ordering & preservation & furtherance of y^e ends aforesaid; and by vertue hearof to enacte, constitute, and frame such just & equall lawes, ordinances, acts, constitutions, & offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meete & convenient for y^e generall good of y^e Colonie, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witnes wherof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cap-Codd y^e 11 of November, in y^e year of y^e raigne of our soveraigne lord, King James, of England, France, & Ireland y^e eighteenth, and of Scotland y^e fiftie fourth. An^o: Dom. 1620. [Forty-one names.]

The Mayflower Compact has received full and adequate treatment in the paper read before this Society in October, 1920, by Arthur Lord, LL.D.