The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1899-12-28

mainder Of the paper WAS an ansver 10
TIE question, What light, n any does
this action throw upon the causes Il Mr..
wiilianss banishmensf II, as nr. Dsx.
tsr says. che banishmsnt was fer 'sasons
purely political and had no relaaon to
Mr.. Wiiliams's notions upon toieraton, it
would seem that In the action Il the
Council In 1876 we should find some in
dications OF that fact. These are not 10
DC found. Mr., Williams was banished
fer having al r Jaohed and dyvulgtd dy-
vera newe and dangerous opinions" and
Tor having maintained this same without
retraction. IL IL noteworthy that In the
action OF the council IN 1876 IL II stated
that Mr. Williams, hitherto reslr lined,
might come into the colony for security
TO his psrson, she behaving himse
peaceably and inoffensiveiy IL not dis
seimfnating Il venting any Of his differ
ent opinions In matters Of rJligion to the
dissa tistsction Of any" This may mean
within the limits OF the colony n he
would so gusrl his utterAncss with r,feI-
enoe TO matters OF religion as not to give
offence to the Bay Colony psopls. Or It
may mean that any expression whatever
OF his religious opinions would not be
tolerated II they were displeasing TO the
milton Of the fact that MIR. Willians's doc
trine OF soul liberty was certainly one OF
the causes that led to his banisbment III
We take the view that Me. Williams
might have nm asylum in some one OF the
towns Of the Bay Colony provided he
would 30 gufr1 his utteranoes on matters
Of religion ne not to give offence to the
people there. this would seem to be con-
csssion to this position Roger williams
hsld In hts o stripe Of soul liberty. hs
brst of this charges brought against MIR.
Williams mt ths time OF his banishment
punish the tysach OF ths erst table, ex-
oept wh.n tbs civil pssos should be en-
dangered." In oth'r words, according 20
Mr.. Ailliams, tbs magistrate MIGHT
Justly Interfere II Tbs civil peace fhould
be imperilled. He never held any OF h,r
view. With hun soul liberty was not
license even In matters Of religion.
II We take thu other view. that II Mr..
Williams accented the offered asylum no
ey PRESTON whatever ''of he different
opinions In matters Of religion" would
he tolerated, thsre Is In fhs action Of tha
Council most clearly and enthusiastically
N recognition of this fact fhst MIR. Will
liams's doctrine OF soul liberty WAS In
volved In this sentence Of Punishment, and
still stood In III, way of HIS return to any
of III, towns of tbs colony for security
In a time of distress Any such agree
ment on his part. Whsihsr expresssu or
implied, would be q denial Of thu great
trlncipls which from ths time of his ar
rival IN New England MIR. Williams had
so tsnsciously h I'D and advocated and
which h d now become insspai ably CON-
neoted with his name Never had he
been accustomed to refrain from giving
expression 60 any of "bis different opin-
Ions in matters Of religion" and we can
not think of Roger Williams In circum.
stances so distressing Us would prompt
him to aopept an asy lum at price that
would indicate n rsnunciation OF his long
cherished principle of soul liberty. The
action of the Massachusetts Council. how
ever, Is delightful evidence OF the kindly
feeling that was entertained for Roger
Williams by the lead irs of the Puritan
colony, and while it must have Rwak-
ened memories that were not alto
gethtr pleasing Ii could hardly have
failed to nave reached and touched his
heart.