Introduction
Roger Williams (ca. 1603-83), religious leader
and one of the founders of Rhode Island, was the son of a well-to-do
London businessman. Educated at Cambridge (A.B., 1627) he became a
clergyman and in 1630 sailed for Massachusetts. He refused a call to the
church of Boston because it had not formally broken with the Church of
England, but after two invitations he became the assistant pastor, later
pastor, of the church at Salem. He questioned the right of the colonists
to take the Indians' land from them merely on the legal basis of the royal
charter and in other ways ran afoul of the oligarchy then ruling
Massachusetts. In 1635 he was found guilty of spreading "new
authority of magistrates" and was ordered to be banished from the
colony. He lived briefly with friendly Indians and then, in 1636, founded
Providence in what was to be the colony of Rhode Island and Providence
Plantations. His religious views led him to become briefly a Baptist,
later a Seeker. In 1644, while he was in England getting a charter for his
colony from Parliament, he wrote the work from which this dialogue is
taken. During much of his later life he was engaged in polemics on
political and religious questions. He was an important figure in the
intellectual life of his time, though the direct influence of his writings
is considered by Professor Brockunier to have been slight: "Earliest
of the fathers of American democracy, he owes his enduring fame to his
humanity and breadth of view, his untiring devotion to the cause of
democracy and free opportunity, and his long record of opposition to the
privileged and self-seeking"
First, that the blood of so many hundred thousand souls
of Protestants and Papists, spilt in the wars of present and former ages,
for their respective consciences, is not required nor accepted by Jesus
Christ the Prince of Peace.
Secondly, pregnant scriptures and arguments are
throughout the work proposed against the doctrine of persecution for cause
of conscience.
Thirdly, satisfactory answers are given to scriptures,
and objections produced by Mr. Calvin, Beza, Mr. Cotton, and the ministers
of the New English churches and others former and later, tending to prove
the doctrine of persecution for cause of conscience.
Fourthly, the doctrine of persecution for cause of
conscience is proved guilty of all the blood of the souls crying for
vengeance under the altar.
Fifthly, all civil states with their officers of justice
in their respective constitutions and administrations are proved
essentially civil, and therefore not judges, governors, or defenders of
the spiritual or Christian state and worship.
Sixthly, it is the will and command of God that (since
the coming of his Son the Lord Jesus) a permission of the most paganish,
Jewish, Turkish, or antichristian consciences and worships, be granted to
all men in all nations and countries; and they are only to be fought
against with that sword which is only (in soul matters) able to conquer,
to wit, the sword of God's Spirit, the Word of God.
Seventhly, the state of the Land of Israel, the kings
and people thereof in peace and war, is proved figurative and ceremonial,
and no pattern nor president for any kingdom or civil state in the world
to follow.
Eighthly, God requireth not a uniformity of religion to
be enacted and enforced in any civil state; which enforced uniformity
(sooner or later) is the greatest occasion of civil war, ravishing of
conscience, persecution of Christ Jesus in his servants, and of the
hypocrisy and destruction of millions of souls.
Ninthly, in holding an enforced uniformity of religion
in a civil state, we must necessarily disclaim our desires and hopes of
the Jew's conversion to Christ.
Tenthly, an enforced uniformity of religion throughout a
nation or civil state, confounds the civil and religious, denies the
principles of Christianity and civility, and that Jesus Christ is come in
the flesh.
Eleventhly, the permission of other consciences and
worships than a state professeth only can (according to God) procure a
firm and lasting peace (good assurance being taken according to the wisdom
of the civil state for uniformity of civil obedience from all forts).
Twelfthly, lastly, true civility and Christianity may
both flourish in a state or kingdom, notwithstanding the permission of
divers and contrary consciences, either of Jew or Gentile....
TRUTH. I acknowledge that to
molest any person, Jew or Gentile, for either professing doctrine, or
practicing worship merely religious or spiritual, it is to persecute him,
and such a person (whatever his doctrine or practice be, true or false)
suffereth persecution for conscience.
But withal I desire it may be well observed that this
distinction is not full and complete: for beside this that a man may be
persecuted because he holds or practices what he believes in conscience to
be a truth (as Daniel did, for which he was cast into the lions' den, Dan.
6), and many thousands of Christians, because they durst not cease to
preach and practice what they believed was by God commanded, as the
Apostles answered (Acts 4 & 5), I say besides this a man may also be
persecuted, because he dares not be constrained to yield obedience to such
doctrines and worships as are by men invented and appointed....
Dear TRUTH, I have two sad
complaints:
First, the most sober of the witnesses, that dare to
plead thy cause, how are they charged to be mine enemies, contentious,
turbulent, seditious?
Secondly, shine enemies, though they speak and rail
against thee, though they outrageously pursue, imprison, banish, kill thy
faithful witnesses, yet how is all vermilion'd o'er for justice against
the heretics? Yea, if they kindle coals, and blow the flames of devouring
wars, that leave neither spiritual nor civil state, but burn up branch and
root, yet how do all pretend an holy war? He that kills, and he that's
killed, they both cry out: "It is for God, and for their conscience."
'Tis true, nor one nor other seldom dare to plead the
mighty Prince Christ Jesus for their author, yet (both Protestant and
Papist) pretend they have spoke with Moses and the Prophets who all, say
they (before Christ came), allowed such holy persecutions, holy wars
against the enemies of holy church.
TRUTH. Dear PEACE
(to ease thy first complaint), 'tis true, thy dearest sons, most like
their mother, peacekeeping, peacemaking sons of God, have borne and still
must bear the blurs of troublers of Israel, and turners of the world
upside down. And 'tis true again, what Solomon once spake: "The
beginning of strife is as when one letteth out water, therefore (saith he)
leave off contention before it be meddled with. This caveat should keep
the banks and sluices firm and strong, that strife, like a breach of
waters, break not in upon the sons of men."
Yet strife must be distinguished: It is necessary or
unnecessary, godly or Ungodly, Christian or unchristian, etc.
It is unnecessary, unlawful, dishonorable, ungodly,
unchristian, in most cases in the world, for there is a possibility of
keeping sweet peace in most cases, and, if it be possible, it is the
express command of God that peace be kept (Rom. 13).
Again, it is necessary, honorable, godly, etc., with
civil and earthly weapons to defend the innocent and to rescue the
oppressed from the violent paws and jaws of oppressing persecuting Nimrods
2 (Psal. 73; Job 29).
It is as necessary, yea more honorable, godly, and
Christian, to fight the fight of faith, with religious and spiritual
artillery, and to contend earnestly for the faith of Jesus, once delivered
to the saints against all opposers, and the gates of earth and hell, men
or devils, yea against Paul himself, or an angel from heaven, if he bring
any other faith or doctrine....
PEACE. I add that a civil sword
(as woeful experience in all ages has proved) is so far from bringing or
helping forward an opposite in religion to repentance that magistrates sin
grievously against the work of God and blood of souls by such proceedings.
Because as (commonly) the sufferings of false and antichristian teachers
harden their followers, who being blind, by this means are occasioned to
tumble into the ditch of hell after their blind leaders, with more
inflamed zeal of lying confidence. So, secondly, violence and a sword of
steel begets such an impression in the sufferers that certainly they
conclude (as indeed that religion cannot be true which needs such
instruments of violence to uphold it so) that persecutors are far from
soft and gentle commiseration of the blindness of others....
For (to keep to the similitude which the Spirit useth,
for instance) to batter down a stronghold, high wall, fort, tower, or
castle, men bring not a first and second admonition, and after obstinacy,
excommunication, which are spiritual weapons concerning them that be in
the church: nor exhortation to repent and be baptized, to believe in the
Lord Jesus, etc., which are proper weapons to them that be without, etc.
But to take a stronghold, men bring cannons, culverins, saker, bullets,
powder, muskets, swords, pikes, etc., and these to this end are weapons
effectual and proportionable.
On the other side, to batter down idolatry, false
worship, heresy, schism, blindness, hardness, out of the soul and spirit,
it is vain, improper, and unsuitable to bring those weapons which are used
by persecutors, stocks, whips, prisons, swords, gibbets, stakes, etc.
(where these seem to prevail with some cities or kingdoms, a stronger
force sets up again, what a weaker pull'd down), but against these
spiritual strongholds in the souls of men, spiritual artillery and weapons
are proper, which are mighty through God to subdue and bring under the
very thought to obedience, or else to bind fast the soul with chains of
darkness, and lock it up in the prison of unbelief and hardness to
eternity....
PEACE. I pray descend now to the
second evil which you observe in the answerer's position, viz., that it
would be evil to tolerate notorious evildoers, seducing teachers, etc.
TRUTH. I say the evil is that he
most improperly and confusedly joins and couples seducing teachers with
scandalous livers.
PEACE. But is it not true that
the world is full of seducing teachers, and is it not true that seducing
teachers are notorious evildoers?
TRUTH. I answer, far be it from
me to deny either, and yet in two things I shall discover the great evil
of this joining and coupling seducing teachers, and scandalous livers as
one adequate or proper object of the magistrate's care and work to
suppress and punish.
First, it is not an homogeneal (as we speak) but an
hetergeneal 3 commixture or
joining together of things most different in kinds and natures, as if they
were both of one consideration....
TRUTH. I answer, in granting
with Brentius 4 that man hath not
power to make laws to bind conscience, he overthrows such his tenent and
practice as restrain men from their worship, according to their conscience
and belief, and constrain them to such worships (though it be out of a
pretense that they are convinced) which their own souls tell them they
have no satisfaction nor faith in.
Secondly, whereas he affirms that men may make laws to
see the laws of God observed.
I answer, God needeth not the help of a material sword
of steel to assist the sword of the Spirit in the affairs of conscience,
to those men, those magistrates, yea that commonwealth which makes such
magistrates, must needs have power and authority from Christ Jesus to fit
judge and to determine in all the great controversies concerning doctrine,
discipline, government, etc.
And then I ask whether upon this ground it must not
evidently follow that:
Either there is no lawful commonw earth nor civil state
of men in the world, which is not qualified with this spiritual discerning
(and then also that the very commonweal hath more light concerning the
church of Christ than the church itself).
Or, that the commonweal and magistrates thereof must
judge and punish as they are persuaded in their own belief and conscience
(be their conscience paganish, Turkish, or antichristian) what is this but
to confound heaven and earth together, and not only to take away the being
of Christianity out of the world, but to take away all civility, and the
world out of the world, and to lay all upon heaps of confusion? . ..
PEACE. The fourth head is the
proper means of both these powers to attain their ends.
First, the proper means whereby the civil power
may and should attain its end are only political, and principally these
five.
First, the erecting and establishing what form of
civil government may seem in wisdom most meet, according to general
rules of the world, and state of the people.
Secondly, the making, publishing, and establishing of
wholesome civil laws, not only such as concern civil justice, but also
the free passage of true religion; for outward civil peace ariseth and
is maintained from them both, from the latter as well as from the
former.
Civil peace cannot stand entire, where religion is
corrupted (2 Chron. 15. 3. 5. 6; and Judges 8). And yet such laws,
though conversant about religion, may still be counted civil laws, as,
on the contrary, an oath cloth still remain religious though conversant
about civil matters.
Thirdly, election and appointment of civil officers to
see execution to those laws.
Fourthly, civil punishments and rewards of
transgressors and observers of these laws.
Fifthly, taking up arms against the enemies of civil
peace.
Secondly, the means whereby the church may and
should attain her ends are only ecclesiastical, which are chiefly five.
First, setting up that form of church government only
of which Christ hath given them a pattern in his Word.
Secondly, acknowledging and admitting of no lawgiver
in the church but Christ and the publishing of His laws.
Thirdly, electing and ordaining of such officers only,
as Christ hath appointed in his Word.
Fourthly, to receive into their fellowship them that
are approved and inflicting spiritual censures against them that o end.
Fifthly, prayer and patience in suffering any evil
from them that be without, who disturb their peace.
So that magistrates, as magistrates, have no power of
setting up the form of church government, electing church officers,
punishing with church censures, but to see that the church does her duty
herein. And on the other side, the churches as churches, have no power
(though as members of the commonweal they may have power) of erecting or
altering forms of civil government, electing of civil officers, inflicting
civil punishments (no not on persons excommunicate) as by deposing
magistrates from their civil authority, or withdrawing the hearts of the
people against them, to their laws, no more than to discharge wives, or
children, or servants, from due obedience to their husbands, parents, or
masters; or by taking up arms against their magistrates, though he
persecute them for conscience: for though members of churches who are
public officers also of the civil state may suppress by force the violence
of usurpers, as Iehoiada did Athaliah, yet this they do not as members of
the church but as officers of the civil state.
TRUTH. Here are divers
considerable passages which I shall briefly examine, so far as concerns
our controversy.
First, whereas they say that the civil power may erect
and establish what form of civil government may seem in wisdom most meet,
I acknowledge the proposition to be most true, both in itself and also
considered with the end of it, that a civil government is an ordinance of
God, to conserve the civil peace of people, so far as concerns their
bodies and goods, as formerly hath been said.
But from this grant I infer (as before hath been
touched) that the sovereign, original, and foundation of civil power lies
in the people (whom they must needs mean by the civil power distinct from
the government set up). And, if so, that a people may erect and establish
what form of government seems to them most meet for their civil condition;
it is evident that such governments as are by them erected and established
have no more power, nor for no longer time, than the civil power or people
consenting and agreeing shall betrust them with. This is clear not only in
reason but in the experience of all commonweals, where the people are not
deprived of their natural freedom by the power of tyrants.
And, if so, that the magistrates receive their power of
governing the church from the people, undeniably it follows that a people,
as a people, naturally consider (of what nature or nation soever in
Europe, Asia, Africa, or America), have fundamentally and originally, as
men, a power to govern the church, to see her do her duty, to correct her,
to redress, reform, establish, etc. And if this be not to pull God and
Christ and Spirit out of heaven, and subject them unto natural, sinful,
inconstant men, and so consequently to Satan himself, by whom all peoples
naturally are guided, let heaven and earth judge....
PEACE. Some will here ask: What
may the magistrate then lawfully do with his civil horn or power in
matters of religion?
TRUTH. His horn not being the
horn of that unicorn or rhinoceros, the power of the Lord Jesus in
spiritual cases, his sword not the two-edged sword of the spirit, the word
of God (hanging not about the loins or side, but at the lips. and
proceeding out of the mouth of his ministers) but of an humane and civil
nature and constitution, it must consequently be of a humane and civil
operation, for who knows not that operation follows constitution; And
therefore I shall end this passage with this consideration:
The civil magistrate either respecteth that religion and
worship which his conscience is persuaded is true, and upon which he
ventures his soul; or else that and those which he is persuaded are false.
Concerning the first, if that which the magistrate
believeth to be true, be true, I say he owes a threefold duty unto it:
First, approbation and countenance, a reverent esteem
and honorable testimony, according to Isa. 49, and Revel. 21, with a
tender respect of truth, and the professors of it.
Secondly, personal submission of his own soul to the
power of the Lord Jesus in that spiritual government and kingdom,
according to Matt. 18 and 1 Cor. 5.
Thirdly, protection of such true professors of Christ,
whether apart, or met together, as also of their estates from violence
and injury, according to Rom. 13.
Now, secondly, if it be a false religion (unto which
the civil magistrate dare not adjoin, yet) he owes:
First, permission (for approbation he owes not what is
evil) and this according to Matthew 13. 30 for public peace and quiet's
sake.
Secondly, he owes protection to the persons of his
subjects (though of a false worship), that no injury be offered either to
the persons or goods of any....
...The God of Peace, the God of Truth will shortly seal
this truth, and confirm this witness, and make it evident to the whole
world, that the doctrine of persecution for cause of conscience, is most
evidently and lamentably contrary to the doctrine of Christ Jesus the
Prince of Peace. Amen.
1. Roger Williams, The Bloudy
Tenent of Persecution ... ("Publications of the Narragansett Club"
[Providence, R.I.], Vol. III [1867]), pp. 3-4, 63, 58-59, 138-39, 148,
170-71, 201, 247-50, 372-73, 424-25.
2. See Gen. 10:8-9
3. Old forms for "homogeneous"
and "heterogeneous."
4. Johann Brenz
(1499-1570), German Lutheran theologian.
This except from Roger Williams classic treatise entitled The Bloody Tenent of Persecution, for Cause of Conscience was prepared by Constitutional Society and appears here in reformated form with their kind permission. We recommend visiting the Constitutional Society site for the most comprehensive set of archieves on the subject of freedom in Western Civilization on the Internet.
Document uploaded to this site:
10/23/01
