Roger Williams, Prophet and Pioneer of Soul-LibertyStrickland, Arthur Barsazou
Religion
Roger Williams, Prophet and Pioneer of Soul-Liberty
Strickland, Arthur Barsazou
Williams, Roger, 1604?-1683
In December, 1633, he forwarded to the governor and his assistants a
document which he had prepared at Plymouth, in which he disputed their
right to have the land by the king’s grant. Williams claimed, “they
have no title except they compounded with the natives.” He also accused
King James of telling a lie in claiming to be “the first Christian
prince to discover this new land.” This treatise had never been
published or made public. Its appearance now terrified the governor and
the assistants, for at that very time they were holding the possession
to their colony on a charter originally given for a different purpose.
It had been granted in England to a trading company, and its transfer
was questionable. They feared the king might withdraw it. This treatise
of Williams would be considered treason by the king. They met on
December twenty-seventh and counseled with Williams. Seeing the grave
danger to the colony, he agreed to give evidence of loyalty. Today we
do not question the ethical correctness of the advanced position held
by Williams.
It was not long before this pioneer of soul-liberty raised a new
question concerning “the propriety of administering an oath, which
is an act of worship, to either the unwilling or the unregenerate.”
Williams’ position was peculiarly obnoxious to the magistrates who
were then on the point of testing the loyalty of the colonists by
administering an oath of allegiance which was to be, in reality,
allegiance to the colony instead of to the king. The Court was called
to discuss the new objection to its policy. Mr. Cotton informs us that
the position was so well defended by Williams that “it threatened the
court with serious embarrassment.” The people supported Williams’
position, and the court was compelled to desist. On the death of
Skelton, in August, 1634, the Salem church installed Roger Williams
as their teacher. This act gave great offense to the General Court in
Boston. Williams commenced anew his agitation against the right to own
land by the king’s patent. The Salem church and Williams were both
cited to appear before the General Court, July 18, 1635, to answer
complaints made against them.
The elders gave their opinion:
He who would obstinately maintain such opinions (whereby a church
might run into heresy, apostasy, or tyranny, and yet the civil
Magistrates may not intermeddle) ought to be removed, and that the
other churches ought to request the Magistrates so to do.
The church and the pastor were notified “to consider the matter until
the next General Court, and then to recant, or expect the court to take
some final action.” At this same court, the Salem people petitioned
for a title to some land at Marblehead Neck, which was theirs, as they
believed, by a just claim. The court refused even to consider this
claim, “until there shall be time to test more fully the quality of
your allegiance to the power which you desire should be interposed on
your behalf.” Professor Knowles says:
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account