American History – Influential Ministers: Elisha Williams

Introduction

Our attention now turns to one of the last two ministers we will examine prior to moving into the Founding of America and the men and women behind it. Today, our focus will be on Elisha Williams. Finding much about his life was difficult, but the contribution he made to thought and philosophy in America comes in the form of a sermon published in journals, so we will examine that to learn what we can of the man’s philosophy and what it was, exactly, that he gave to the Founding Fathers that proved so important. First, let us examine what we do know of the man’s personal life.

Who Was Elisha Williams?

Elisha Williams was the son of Reverend William Williams, the great-grandson of John Cotton and Governor Simon Bradstreet. He was born in 1694 in Hatfield, Massachusetts, and his list of accomplishments are somewhat extensive. He graduated from Harvard in 1711 when he was seventeen, studied theology with his father, read law, and was a preacher to seamen in Nova Scotia. He also tutored Yale students (one of whom was Jonathan Edwards Sr.), pastored a Congregationalist church in Wethersfield, Connecticut for four years, served as a Yale rector and on the Connecticut General Assembly after he left that post, held a post as a judge on the Connecticut Supreme Court, was a chaplain during the 1745 expedition that took Louisbourg, and was appointed commander-in-chief of the forces set to invade Canada. The invasion never happened, so the post was not one he ever actually had to fulfill. The year before he died, he served as a delegate to the Albany Congress, which developed the first American plan of union under Benjamin Franklin’s guidance and leadership. 

But his most significant contribution to American liberty and the Founding was his essay “The Essential Rights and Liberties of Protestants”, which was written in 1744. The piece combined Locke’s philosophy from his Second Treatise on Civil Government with Williams’ own theory of government and natural law to give us a doctrine that was incredibly radical for an 18th century world. He signed the piece Philalethes.

What Was So Radical About Williams’ Essay?

The first reason the piece was so radical is because at the time it was uncommon to have a separation between civil and ecclesiastical authority, which was what Williams constantly insisted must be the case. More often than not, the king or queen of a country was also the head of the church because there was a State religion. In the colonies, this was less accepted because of the wide variation in Christian sects across the colonies, but it was still well understood that whoever was the ecclesiastical head, at least, of that denomination ran things. Some denominations, like the Protestants and Quakers, never ascribed to this belief, but most of the denominations did in some way. This made Williams incredibly unpopular with both civil and religious leaders. In fact, his beliefs made him so unpopular that they led to his not being elected for another term as a Connecticut Supreme Court judge. Despite that, Williams did not back down on his position.

The second reason that his beliefs were so radical is contained in the essay itself. The philosophy he held, as we mentioned earlier, combined Locke’s understanding of government and natural law with Williams’ own belief in the natural rights of man to determine for himself what he would believe on the matters of religion. He placed an extremely heavy emphasis on reason and the mind in producing true Christianity. He goes so far, in his essay “The Essential Rights and Liberties of Protestants”, to soundly rebuke anyone who thought they could dispense with reason in the following manner: “This right of judging every one for himself in matters of religion results from the nature of man, is so inseparably connected therewith, that a man can no more part with it than he can his power of thinking: and it is equally reasonable for him to attempt to strip himself of the power of reasoning, as to attempt the vesting of another with this right. And whoever invades this right of another, be he pope or Caesar, may with equal reason assume the other’s power of thinking, and so level him with the brutal creation. A man may alienate some branches of his property and give up his right in them to others; but he cannot transfer the rights of conscience, unless he destroy his rational and moral powers, or substitute some other to be judged for him at the tribunal of God” (The Essential Rights and Liberties of Protestants, 1744).

More scathing still was his rebuke of those who attempt to legislate or substitute a man’s own judgment and choice with that of another man’s. He states, “Man by his constitution as he is a reasonable being capable of the knowledge of his Maker; is a moral and accountable being: and therefore as every one is accountable for himself, he must reason, judge and determine for himself. That faith and practice which depends on the judgment and choice of any other person, and not on the person’s own understanding judgement and choice, may pass for religion in the synagogue of Satan, whose tenet is that ignorance is the mother of devotion; but with no understanding Protestant will it pass for any religion at all. No action is a religious action without understanding and choice in the agent.” Strong words, certainly, and they did nothing to endear him to the large numbers of Anglican and Catholic believers and ecclesiastical authorities in Connecticut. In fact, since this piece was written in response to the Connecticut legislature’s attempts to restrict the growth of ministries run by evangelicals and Great Awakening preachers on behalf of these very ecclesiastical leaders, it comes as little surprise that they were outraged by Williams’ writings.

Nevertheless, what I have quoted above was the least of the radical and offensive reasoning that Williams used. We are going to take a deep dive into this essay of his to examine the philosophy he was declaring in it because it was this philosophy that would echo through the entire Revolutionary War and our Founding documents as well as the writings of even the less religious of our Founding Fathers.

If we do not understand what Williams lays out so eloquently in this essay, then we do not understand the basis for American rights and liberties at all, and those of us who claim we are Americans without this understanding ought to be hanging our heads in shame for our horrifying lack of understanding and knowledge of our own history and philosophy. While much of this is the fault of our educational institutions for refusing to teach from primary sources, twisting the narrative, and relying on Zinn’s false history of America (written from an openly Communistic perspective and declared bad history by most legitimate historians at the time), we have little excuse not to know our own history when we are as capable as the next person of picking up the primary sources and reading them to evaluate for ourselves the reality of the Founding’s history.

The Source of Rights

We begin in our assessment where Williams does: the source of rights. Let me begin by providing you with the opening of Williams’ essay, which was initially a letter in response to an inquiry he received so far as can be told by his introduction:

“Sir,

I now give you my thoughts on the questions you lately sent me. As you set me the task, you must take the performance as it is without any apology for its defects. I have wrote with the usual freedom of a friend, aiming at nothing but truth, and to express my self so as to be understood. In order to answer your main enquiry concerning the extent of the civil magistrate’s power respecting religion; I suppose it needful to look back to the end, and therefore to the original of it: By which means I suppose a just notion may be formed of what is properly their business or the object of their power; and so without any insuperable difficulty we may thence learn what is out of that compass.

That the sacred scriptures are the alone rule of faith and practice to a Christian, all Protestants are agreed in; and must therefore inviolably maintain, that every Christian has a right of judging for himself what he is to believe and practice in religion according to that rule: Which I think on a full examination you will find perfectly inconsistent with any power in the civil magistrate to make any penal laws in matters of religions. Tho’ Protestants are agreed in the profession of that principle, yet too many in practice have departed from it. The evils that have been introduced thereby into the Christian church are more than can be reckoned up. Because of the great importance of it to the Christian and to his standing fast in that liberty wherewith Christ has made him free, you will not fault me if I am the longer upon it. The more firmly this is established in our minds; the more firm shall we be against all attempts upon our Christian liberty, and better practice that Christian charity towards such as are of different sentiments from us in religion that is so much recommended and inculcated in those sacred oracles, and which a just understanding of our Christian rights has a natural tendency to influence us to.”

Here, Williams makes it clear that his goal is to go back to the origin of civil government and rights in determining both what the government can and cannot do and in determining what rights those within the union ruled by that government ought to have. So where does he start?

“To proceed then as I have just hinted, I shall first, briefly consider the Origin and End of Civil Government. 

First, as to the origin–Reason teaches us that all men are naturally equal in respect of jurisdiction or dominion one over another. Altho’ true it is that children are not born in this full state of equality, yet they are born to it. Their parents have a sort of rule & jurisdiction over them when they come into the world, and for some time after: But it is but a temporary one; which arises from that duty incumbent on them to take care of their offspring during the imperfect state of childhood, to preserve, nourish and educate them (as the workmanship of their own almighty Maker, to whom they are to be accountable for them), and govern the actions of their yet ignorant nonage, ’till reason shall take its place and ease them of that trouble…For the freedom of man and liberty of acting according to his own will (without being subject to the will of another) is grounded on his having reason, which is able to instruct him in that law he is to govern himself by, and make him know how far he is left to the freedom of his own will. So we are born free as we are born rational.”

This natural law, he continues to state, is what leads to our rights to protect our own person, our rights to the labor of our own hands, and the rights to whatever we are able to take from nature and blend with the work of our hands–that is to say, property. He states, “Thus every man having a natural right to (or being the proprietor of) his own person and his own actions and labour and to what he can honestly acquire by his labour, which we call property; it certainly follows, that no man can have a right to the person or property of another: And if every man has a right to his person and property; he has also a right to defend them, and a right to all the necessary means of defence, and so has a right of punishing all insults upon his person and property.”

So if every man has a natural right to his own person, labour and fruits of that labour, and the protection of both, then what is the purpose of civil government? Why would anyone give up any of his freedom to rule himself in all things to form a civil society? It is in the answer to these questions that we discover the reason and scope of rational, legitimate government. In answering the question, Williams appeals to Locke, whom he greatly admired. He says “Three things are wanting in this state [the state of nature] (as the celebrated Lock observes) to render them safe; viz. an established known law received and allowed by common consent to be the standard of right and wrong, the common measure to decide all controversies between them. For tho’ the law of nature be intelligible to all rational creatures, yet men being biassed by their interest as well as ignorant for want of the study of it, are not apt to allow of it as a law binding to them in the application of it to their particular cases. There wants also a known and indifferent judge with authority to determine all differences according to established law: for men are too apt to be partial to themselves, and too much wanting in a just concern for the interest of others. … Now to remedy these inconveniencies, reason teaches men to join in society, to unite together into a commonwealth under some form or another, to make a body of laws agreeable to the law of nature, and institute one common power to see them observed.”

He continues to elaborate for a bit on what it is that the people unite to do, but he concludes two things on the matter of government:

1. The fountain and original of all civil power is from the people, and is certainly instituted for their sakes; or in other words, which was the second thing proposed, great end of civil government, is the preservation of their persons, their liberties and estates, or their property.

2. It is nothing but their [the people’s] own good can be any rational inducement to it [giving up the liberty of their natural state]: and to suppose they either should or would do it on any other, is to suppose rational creatures ought to change their state with a design to make it worse. And that good which in such a state they find a need of, is no other than a greater security of enjoyment of what belonged to them.

So, if this is the case, then what follows from it? Williams lists two different “heads” of liberty that are given up to this end.

1. The power that every one has in a state of nature to do whatever he judgeth fit, for the preservation of his person and property and that of others also, within the permission of the law of nature, he gives up to be regulated by laws made by the society, so far forth as the preservation of himself (his person and property) and the rest of that society shall require.

2. The power of punishing he wholly gives up, and engages his natural force (which he might before employ in the execution of the law of nature by his own single authority as he thought fit) to assist the executive power of the societ as the law thereof shall require. For (he adds) being now in a new state wherein he is to enjoy many conveniencies, from the labour assistance and society of others in the same community, as well as protection from its whole strength; he is to part also with as much of his natural liberty and providing for himself, as the good and safety of the society shall require; which is not only necessary but just, since the other members of the society do the like. Now if the giving up of these powers be sufficient to answer those ends for which men enter into a state of government, viz. the better security of their persons and properties; then no more is parted with; and therefore all the rest is ours still. This rest on as certain, that no more natural liberty or power is given up than is necessary for the preservation of person and property.

So, if it is true that the only reason men erect a government is for better security and safety of person and property, and if it is true that the liberties given up must be those of the power to punish however we see fit and to do anything we like within the laws of nature so that a society with somewhat narrower and more just laws based on the laws of nature may stand, then it follows that we would not then give up any other liberties. After all, what could be the rational inducement to it? We are rational, free beings by nature and will not give up our freedoms unless forced to it by tyranny or lulled into it by those who desire to benefit off our laxness in protecting what is ours by right. This is the train of reasoning that Williams is following. He then goes on to discuss three points of liberty that we are never to give up.

1. The right that every one has to speak his sentiments openly concerning such matters as affect the good of the whole [freedom of speech].

2. Natural rights in all such cases as have no relation to the ends of such a society. 

3. The natural liberty or right of judging for themselves in matters of religion.

What does Williams have to say about each? Why does he say that we have these liberties? First, he points back to the reason for establishing a government in the first place and argues that these are not areas in which government can have a role when their only rightful authority lies in protecting person and property and the rights of each individual. But in particular, what does he say of each?

Williams’ First Point of Liberty: Freedom of Speech

On the matter of freedom of speech, he states, “Every member of a comunity ought to be concerned for the whole, as well as for his particular part: His life and all, as to this world is as it were embarked in the same bottom, and is perpetually interested in the good or ill success thereof: Whenever therefore he sees a rock on which there is a probability the vessel may split, or if sees a sand that may swallow it up, or if he foresees a storm that is like to arise; his own interest is too deeply concerned not to give notice of the danger: And the right he has to his own life and property give him a right to speak his sentiments. If the pilot or captain don’t think fit to take any notice of it, yet it seems to be certain they have no right to stop the mouth of him who thinks he espys danger to the whole ships crew, or to punish the well-meaning informer. A man would scarce deserve the character of a good member of society who should receive to be silent on all occasions, and never mind, speak, or guard against the follies or ignorance of mistakes of those at the helm.”

This is the predominant reason for this blog. All of us, as members of society, have a responsibility to warn of danger and in fact have a right to do so because the danger of our society running aground and sinking will unfailingly impact our own person and property. So it is not only a duty but a right that I will guard jealously and encourage others to do likewise. Without it, there is no watcher in the tower to warn of impending doom or, as Williams put it, no man on the ship to warn of the coming danger to the crew. To take this away from a people is to doom them to suffer in silence every foolish whims of whichever men are in power. It is a wrong of one of the highest magnitudes.

Williams’ Second Point of Liberty: Freedom to Do Whatever Does Not Affect the Ends of Society

On the second point, Williams states that “In a state of nature men had a right to read Milton or Lock for their instruction or amusement: and why they do not retain this liberty under a government that is instituted for the preservation of their persons and properties, is inconceivable. From whence can such a society derive any right to hinder them from doing that which does not affect the ends of that society? Should a government therefore restrain the free use of the scriptures, prohibit men the reading of them, and make it penal to examine and search them; it would be a manifest usurpation upon the common rights of mankind, as much a violation of natural liberty as the attack of a highwayman upon the road can be upon our civil rights. And indeed, with respect to the sacred writings, men might not only read them if the government did prohibit the same, but they would be bound by a higher authority to read them, notwithstanding any humane prohibition. The pretence of any authority to restrain men from reading the same, is wicked as well as vain. But whether in some cases that have no relation to the ends of government and wherein therefore men retain their natural liberty; if the civil authority should attempt by a law to restrain men, people might not be oblig’d to submit therein, is not here at all the question: tho’ I suppose that in such case wherein they ought to submit, the obligation thereto would arise from some other consideration, and not from the supposed law; there being no binding force in a law where a rightful authority to make the same is wanting.”

What do we derive from this? We understand that reason dictates that if the law restricts us from doing that which cannot have any bearing on the end of society (to allow myself and others to protect our persons and our property better than we could in a natural state), it is not proceeding from any rightful authority and therefore ought to be ignored on the principle of the matter unless there is some other reasonable principle that should induce us to follow it. 

Illustrating the Point

For example, if the government made a law demanding that I give up my home to create apartment buildings that will be public property, that goes directly against the reasonable end of society, and I would be most just in refusing and fighting them until they forced the issue at the point of a gun. To give a less obvious example, consider what Williams pointed out. What if the government were to ban you from reading Locke, Demosthenes, Milton, or any other writer of your preference? This has no bearing whatever on the ends of society in protecting your person and property or that of others. Therefore, you would be justified in reading those authors anyway because the government has no rightful authority to make that demand upon you. 

This does not mean, of course, that we might not face the response of wrongful authority in retribution for our refusal to surrender our natural rights, which they wish to violate. They may, of course, use force to throw me in jail, execute me, or do any number of other things to me. But they will do this by force, without proper authority, and only through tyranny.

This is an important point. Not every tyranny appears to be evil, and not every tyrannical act is done with an obviously nefarious goal. Indeed, an act may be considered “good” by a majority of people and still be tyranny because it has usurped authority and rights that were not its to take. This was something our forefathers and Williams himself understood intimately, and they were willing to suffer anything to defend their principles to the end, even to the death. 

Why This Matters in Particular

This matters in particular because too often Christians and others who are religious ascribe to the same philosophy that Williams later calls his reader out for. We believe that so long as it doesn’t violate any stated principle in the Scriptures, we shouldn’t balk at it because it can be no serious infringement on our liberty. This is the same argument that those trying to take away our liberties wrongfully use on us. “Oh, it’s not a big deal,” they tell us. “What’s your problem? It doesn’t make you or anyone else violate any real tenet of your beliefs, so what does it matter?”

This is a logical fallacy of the highest order because it assumes that their authority extends to anything not specifically prescribed as “thou shalt’s” or “thou shalt not’s” in Scripture. It presumes that our freedom and natural liberty as rational beings is given up in its entirety when we join a civilization and agree to abide by the rules of that society. I point out again that simply because a law does not violate our moral duty to God expressly or demands of us something that seems good does not make it any less tyranny if the command is issued without authority. If issued outside of their authority it should be taken merely as a suggestion. If a good one, we may choose to follow it. If not proven rational or good, we must disregard it for the benefit of society. Let us take a controversial issue here that no one can seem to agree upon: masking in the face of a global pandemic.

Practical Application

First of all, should it be clear that if a particular dictate is for the safety of my person, property, and rights, as well as for the protection of those around me, their property, and their rights, then I grant it would be within the rightful authority of a government to require it in any circumstances where it can proven without a doubt that this is the case. For example, requiring us not to go into nursing homes without being tested for a virus that often proves deadly to the inhabitants is both reasonable and moral since it is legitimately for the protection of members of society. It is also reasonable to require social distancing to help avoid spread as it has been shown that doing so does mitigate the spread a great deal. Not allowing us to see our families, however, is not something that should be tolerated as it cannot be proven that this is actually for our safety, nor is it the government’s right to determine where we may go or who we may go with within our own borders. They are here only to provide a better framework within which we can defend our persons, property, and rights.

Taking a look at this, of course, requires us to make it clear that–within reason–people may mandate how they use their own property and how they will allow others to use it. As the owner of property may declare in what way it is to be used so long as it is not used in a way that infringes on the rights of another to do the same, a store or establishment may, for example, require a mask due to COVID with no violation to anyone else’s rights. If we dislike this, we do not have to favor that establishment with our patronage, and they will shortly be forced to make a choice: change their regulations or settle for not having our business. This is the nature of business. But the government may not do the same except in the regulation of the use of their own property, which by right they may dictate proper use for. 

This is because it is not their job to think for us or to make decisions for us on our own health, period. They may choose to ask of us measures to help prevent spread if they can prove that those measures legitimately work. But if the measures do not work according to all of the studies or else are mixed on whether or not it works, they cannot legitimately make these demands because they are not fulfilling their initial, legitimate purpose according to Williams: to provide for us a means for the better protection of person, property, and rights. It would have to be left up to the citizens to decide for themselves what to do to best protect their health. The government may make recommendations on what they believe will help, of course, but they are only recommendations without clear evidence that the law is necessary to fulfill their original purpose.

Of course, this does not mean the government will not take control and do as they please. Unfortunately, our government looks at our Constitution as a positive document: anything that isn’t included as a clear “you may not do this” is something they may do. The Founders intended it to be a negative document: the document laid out what they were allowed to do as well as some specific things they were not allowed to do. In this way, the Constitution was meant to give a clear scope and limit to the power of the Federal government. 

Our courts and our politicians have twisted it all around to a degree which would render our current system something horrifying and unrecognizable to the Founders. Because this has been done, many of the natural rights that Williams states clearly we ought to retain have been infringed upon and taken away. And this is why our understanding of the origin of rights, what authority civil governments rightfully have, and what rights we do and do not give up in exchange for what a society offers us is imperative.

Lacking this understanding is exactly why Americans are quickly becoming less and less able to say they are some of the freest people in the world. It may still be true to some degree, but it will not be for long if we continue to stand aside while our politicians make a mockery of our rights and institute tyranny over us at every opportunity with no opposition from us.

Williams’ Third Point of Liberty: Freedom to Judge for Ourselves on Matters of Religion

This is one of the liberties most under attack in our day, and in Williams’ day it was also one of the natural rights he saw most being assaulted. That was the whole reason for writing this letter, and he makes it clear in no uncertain terms his stance on the issue. He states the following at various points in the letter:

1. That the civil authority have no power to establish any religion (ie. any professions of faith, modes of worship, or church government) of a human form and composition, as a rule binding to Christians; much less may they do this on any penalties whatsoever.

2. That the civil authority hath no power to make or ordain articles of faith, creeds, forms of worship, or church government This I think evidently follows from what has been said, that they can have no power to decree any articles of faith. 

3. And it is the sacred scriptures alone which have this right to our intire submission, as now described: and no other authority which has yet been or ever shall be set up, has any manner of right at all to govern and direct our consciences in religious matters.

He backs this up with a strong assertion on jurisdiction by stating, “Again, if Christ be the Lord of the conscience; the sole King in his own kingdom, then it will follow, that all such as in any manner or degree assume the power of directing and governing the consciences of men, are justly chargeable with invading his rightful dominion; He alone having the right they claim. Should the king of France take it into his head to prescribe laws to the subjects of the king of Great Britain, who would not say, it was an invasion of an insult offer’d to the British legislature.” 

How Did Williams’ Essay Contribute to Founding Philosophy?

Williams’ piece made quite a stir with its assertions that civil authority had no right to legislate religion. But many of the principles regarding natural rights, society’s ends, and the reason for government ended up in the very principles our country now stands on. Williams defended freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and rights to our own person, labor, and property years before these things were placed into our Founding documents. He was involved in government and in the Albany Convention that was the first of the conventions regarding American liberty.

Between his writings and his involvement in public and civil life, Williams was able to share his ideas with quite a broad audience. It incensed many, many people, but some men caught onto the vision, and they used it to found a country that would stand on government’s rightful place and resist any usurpation of rights that were not necessary to be given up for the end goal of society to protect person and property. Without Williams’ contribution, who knows where we might have been?

Today, his contribution is still highly relevant and significant to us. It is one of the most eloquent, clear defenses for natural rights, the equality of man as a rational being, religious freedom, the right to speak out against tyranny and dangers to a society, and the right to hold firm to those liberties which no government has any right to take from us. It is perhaps the most articulate answer to the why behind the Bill of Rights and the Constitution that I have ever read from anyone, even from many of the Founding Fathers themselves. 

This is not to say, of course, that no other essay or piece of writing from that time can bring nothing more to the table. They provide us with overwhelming proof of the intent and philosophy held by our Founders, and in today’s day and age of unreason and misinformation, those primary sources might well be all that stands between us and a generation who will believe some of the most disgusting lies of our Founding Fathers, who will know nothing of their true philosophy, and who will villainize those who were heroes for standing up against the tyranny that will eventually be imposed on us if we don’t do the same while we still have the means to do so.

We need every reliable primary source we can get our hands on to fight the massive web of lies that our public education institutions are spinning around our young people every day. This is why it is imperative we provide them to people. Better to teach them the truth when they are young than to try to undo decades of lies and indoctrination when they are older. Williams’ essay provides us with a valuable resource in doing so.

Conclusion

Elisha Williams is a name not many Americans even know any more. But he was an indispensable part of the history and philosophy that led to our Founding and made the way for the never-before-seen freedom that this country has enjoyed. His essay provides us with a brilliantly argued, in depth explanation for why we have the liberties we do, and we would do well not to ignore the warnings and admonitions he makes. He knew first hand the destruction that would be caused should these rights be ignored, and if we go down the same path as those around him did, we will experience the same tyranny and failure he saw everywhere he looked. Know and understand the past so that you will not unknowingly repeat the mistakes it contained. 

Resources

The Essential Rights and Liberties of Protestants from Place for Truth by David Hall

Elisha Williams by The First Amendment Encyclopedia

“Elisha Williams on the Unalienable Right Every Person Has to Think and Judge for Themselves” by Oll Liberty Fund

The Essential Rights and Liberties of Protestants – Full Text by Elisha Williams from Google Books (Free ebook)