....Many of the new colonist became a freeman,
this is different than free man:
a free man is listed as a man that was an indentured slave
or a bought slave that has obtained his freedom
. the freeman was entirely different:
....Freemen --- those who applied for that estate in Boston in October, 1630,
and those so sworn thereafter.
The Freemen were the only colonists who were franchised to vote,
and the franchise was not offered to all.
One generally had to be a mature male church-member,
and must have experienced a transforming spiritual experience
by God's grace, as attested by himself and confirmed by church leaders.
Therefore, a small percentage of the population.

....And apparently, a number of qualifying church-members
would not take the oath because they had problems with the wording.
An oath in those times was taken very seriously,
as though it were a promise made directly to the Almighty God
with ones soul forfeit in the breach.

Numerous persons who are on church and court records of 1630-1632 did not take
the oath until 1634,
when the oath was shortened and modified to replace the
persons of the Governor etc.
to whom obedience was due with the impersonal "common weale."
Others, such as those who later became Quakers,
objected strongly to oaths in general.
One can understand all their reservations when one reads this
"first of all American loyalty oaths,"

Oath of a freeman::