Roger Williams - Hero of Religious Liberty? Or...

For many, Roger Williams is regarded as the hero of religious freedom resulting in frequent articles that portray him as an exemplary leader. After reading yet one more such article by an articulate young homeschool alumna, I was moved to respond. In my opinion, far from being the father of religious liberty, Roger Williams was the spiritual father of pluralism in America– the idea that God does not speak authoritatively in the civil arena. He denied that God’s law should be the basis of our civil order. In so doing, he undermined objective truth (despite claiming to support it) because one can’t argue for an objective truth without an objective standard of right and wrong. The only absolute standard of truth (and hence right and wrong) is God’s law. Once God’s Word is discarded as the objective basis of civil law, we are left with only man’s ideas –natural law (in the French enlightenment sense), diversity, equality, majority opinion, or some other manmade standard.

Roger Williams wasn’t arguing simply for the right of Christians to differ; they already had that. Neither was he arguing that the church and state should be separate institutions; they already were. He was arguing against the authority and responsibility of the civil magistrate to enforce the law of God in society.

Today we are reaping the mature fruit of Roger William’s ideas when the Supreme Court strikes down sodomy laws, restricts states ability to outlaw abortion, or refuses to allow prayer at official functions. A nation either upholds God’s law or it upholds man’s law. There is no middle ground. It is not possible to separate the State from religion. It will always be religious. It will always enforce some standard of law. The question is: whose law will it uphold, God’s law or man’s law? Let me illustrate this from Roger Williams himself.

Roger Williams wrote a private letter to Pastor John Cotton asking for his opinion on a matter respecting freedom of conscience. When Mr. Cotton answered his questions in a private reply, Mr. Williams published Cotton’s response along with a counter-response attacking him as a man of blood. In the preface to his book, The Bloody Tenant Washed White In The Blood Of The Lamb, Mr. Cotton wonders how this is consistent with his position. If his private letter was full of errors, why punish him by publishing it along with a scathing attack? Doesn’t he [Cotton] have liberty of conscience to believe as he sees fit? Also, why publish something so unedifying? On the other hand if his letter was true, why attack him as a man of blood? Roger Williams had as little toleration for those who disagreed with him as the Puritans had for his erroneous ideas. Isn’t this the same sort of intolerance masquerading as tolerance that we see today?

Mr. Williams was not a consistent theologian or even an exemplary person.
· He fled England in 1630 because be could not tolerate the Anglican practice of open communion.
· He was offered a pastorate in Boston by the Puritans, which he turned down because he could not tolerate their non-separatist congregationalism.
· He was critical of the Plymouth church for not being separatist enough.
· He returned to England and was critical of the Anglican Church for being too lenient.
· He returned to Salem where he accepted a pastorate. From his pulpit be began attacking the validity of the King’s land patents. He accused the Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay authorities of essentially stealing the land from the Indians.
· He attacked the Anglican church for not being a true church
· He refused to take an oath, along with all the other residents of Massachusetts, to defend the land against enemies because that was an act of worship and would involve him in worship with unregenerate people. He essentially was denying that the civil magistrate was God’s servant, ordained to execute God’s vengeance on those that do evil (defined as breaking the law of God) and possessing the power to administer judicially binding oaths.
· He taught that regenerate and unregenerate people should not pray together – including spouses and children.
· He believed there should, therefore, be no prayer of thanks before meals.
· He nearly split the church with these ideas, committing the sin of schism. The church was saved when he went on to claim that Massachusetts’s churches (of which he was a part) were not true churches, causing people to leave him.
· He fled the state, with a few disciples, to avoid deportation to England by Massachusetts’s authorities. There he was joined by the renegade antinomian, Mrs. Hutchinson.
· From Rhode Island he reversed his position on infant baptism rejecting pædo-baptism.
· He had all his followers re-baptized and then concluded that this baptism was not valid and they would have to wait for another apostolic power.
· He withdrew from the church and decided that he could only take communion with his wife. Then he reversed himself again, deciding that it was not possible for the church to achieve purity in this life and renouncing his extreme separatism.
· He couldn’t agree with anyone, moving from England to Boston, to Salem, to Plymouth, to England, back to Salem, and then to Rhode Island within a space of 6 years.

A better analogy for this man might be Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism. They both rejected lawful authority, led gullible disciples into exile, changed their beliefs with the weather, and rejected the historic faith practiced by the church universal. I would note that this is very different from the reformers who corrected serious errors in the church by going back to the historic faith, not inventing new ideas. From the judicial safety of Rhode Island he wrote of Massachusetts, “My end is to discover and proclaim the dying and horrible guilt of the bloody doctrine, one of the most seditious, destructive, blasphemous, and bloodiest in any or all the nations of the world…” You would think he was writing about the Spanish Inquisition drawing and quartering dissidents instead of Governor Winthrop and his fellow pilgrims who had merely excommunicated him for heresy and sought to deport him to England.

His book, the Bloudy Tenent of Persecution, spells out in detail his rejection of God’s law as the civil law of the land. It was directly answered at the time by John Cotton and by several church councils. (See the Cambridge Synod of 1640) Thankfully, for nearly 150 years, most Christians in America rejected his ideas. States required all officers, from Notary Publics to legislators, to take religious test oaths affirming the deity of Jesus Christ as the second person of the Godhead, and the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the Word of God. It wasn’t until the constitution was written that religious test oaths were removed from America.

One of the Anti-Federalists from Connecticut using the pseudo-name David, wrote, as his state was about to imitate Rhode Island by adopting the US Constitution:

“We have now seen what have been the principles generally adopted by mankind and to what degree they have been adopted in our own state. Before we decide in favor of our practice, let us see what has been the success of those who have made no public provision for religion. Unluckily, we only have to consult our next neighbors. Taught from their infancy to ridicule our formality as the effect of hypocrisy, they have no principle of restraint but laws of their own making; and from such laws may heaven defend us. If this is the success that attends leaving religion to shift wholly for itself, we shall be at no loss to determine, that it is not more difficult to build an elegant house without tools to work with than it is to establish a durable government without the public protection of religion. What the system is which is most proper for our
circumstances will not take long to determine. It must be that which has adopted
the purest moral principles, and which is interwoven in the laws and constitution of our country, and upon which are founded the habits of our people. Upon this foundation we have established a government of influence and opinion, and therefore secured by the affections of the people; and when this foundation is removed, a government of mere force must arise.”

Letter by David in the Complete Anti-Federalist.

In American jurisprudence, the 10 commandments were seen as the basis for all civil law. In many cases the statutes directly quoted or cited scripture as part of the law. Although the laws varied a little from state to state, egregious violations of all the commandments (except the 4th and 10th) were capital crimes. Gradually the capital sentence was dropped from some of the commandments and then some of the commandments themselves were dropped from our civil laws. The usual pattern has been to cease prosecuting the violation of the law and then after years of disuse, to remove it. This pattern continues to this day. Most recently states have repealed all laws regarding the 4th commandment. Violations of laws regarding the 7th commandment are rarely prosecuted and in many cases have been repealed. About all we really have left today are laws respecting the 6th and 8th commandments- except that it’s OK to murder people if they are not yet born! Such is the legacy of rejecting God’s law as the civil law of the land.

Pluralism? Not for Samuel Rutherford

Samuel Rutherford Refutes Roger Williams Regarding Toleration, Sectarianism and Peace

(The original spelling, from the 1649 edition of Rutherford's Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience, has been retained.)


Mr. Roger Williams writes in his book, The Bloody Tenet:

Whether peace of civill societies be sure, where there is toleration of all Religions, and what peace Christians can have in Toleration.

Civill peace is pax civitatis, the peace of the citie, Jer.29.7. Pray for the peace of the Citie, which [or so that the ] peace of the citie or citizens so compacted in a civill way of union, may be intire, unbroken, and safe. Notwithstanding [the] many thousands of Gods people, the Jewes, [who] were there in bondage, and would neither be constrained to the worship of the City of Babell, nor restrained from so much of the worship of the true God, as they could practise, as is plain in Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who would rather suffer, then desist from true worship, or practice false: So the Amoricans and wildest Papists keep the peace of their Townes and Cities safe and distinct, where there is no spirituall and heavenly peace. (Bloody Tenet, cap. 6. p.24,25.)

Rutherford replies, answering his charge that the Americans and papists have opressive governments that lack true peace because they do not tolerate other faiths.

[Begin Quote]
Peace is commanded in the new Testament. [But] no word of toleration of divers Religions, which are the Seminaries of discords between the seed of the woman and the Serpents seed, in all the New Testament, is to be found by precept, promise, or practice, nor any ground of repealing judicial Lawes for punishing seducing teachers.

Answer. All this is to prove that there may be no breach of Citie peace, or civil peace, where there are multitudes of sundry Religions. But 1. the man should remember, there is a Christian externall peace, which in an ordinarie providence can not be kept, where there be divers Religions, and sundry waies of worshipping Christ, & we beleeve our Saviour intendeth so much, Mat.10:34. Thinke not that I am come to send peace on earth, I came not to send peace, but the sword. v.35. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother. Luke 21.16. And ye shall be betrayed both by your parents, brethren, kinsfolks, and friends, and some of you they shall cause to be put to death.

And what is the quarrell, but divers Religions and waies of worship about Christ. So Paul exhorteth to Christian peace, Ephes.4:3. Indeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, not because of contrary Religions, and many Sectaries called the holy partie that are to bee tolerated in meeknesse and mutuall forbearance: But v.5. Because there is but one Lord, one faith, one baptisme, and but one Religion whether Presbyteriall or Independent, and since the Apostles and Christ in the New Testament so often recommend peace, and never once insinuate forbearance in diversitie of Religion, and all the Apostles and Apostolike Church had but one Religion, toleration of many Religions not being a part of the New Testament liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, as is the libertie from Ceremonies, and righteousness by the Law, that the foolish Galathians affected, Gal.5.1,2, We conclude there is a Law against Toleration of many Religions, not any repealing of that Law in the New Testament, but divers Religions expressely forbidden as contrary to peace, and foretold to fall out as sad judgements, Mat.10.35. Mat.24.24. Luke 21.14,15,16,17,18. I Tim.4.1,2,3,4. 2 Tim.3.5,6,7,8. 2 Joh.10.

Our Adversaries are obliged to give us precept, promise, or godly practice, why a moral sin forbidden and severely punished in the Old Testament, should yet remain a moral sin in the New Testament, and yet not be punishable by men or churches. Did not Solomons toleration of the Idolatrous worship, I Kings 11, provoke the Lord to anger? How can one then maintain that his wives consciences' should not have been compelled to leave off the worshipping of the Gods of the Moabites and Ammonites by appealing to Rom. 14.19? Let us follow after the thing that makes for peace (saith Paul) but toleration of many Religions is contrary to peace, if one of them be the only true way, the rest are all false ways. The mixture of the two contrary seeds, the seed of the Serpent, and the seed of the woman must be against peace; and Paul exhorting to union and Christian peace, thinks many Religions, many Sects and opinions tolerated, 1 Cor.1.10. to be just contrary to peace. Now I beseech you brethren by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that here be no divisions among you, but that ye be perfectly joyned together in the same minde, and in the same judgement.

Hence he seriously exhorts from Schismes and Sects, whereas upon supposition of divers Sects, all being godly, we should have some charitable precepts commanding men of divers Religions to bear with one another. But where is that written? and if they dwell together peaceably, why but they may marry together, Achab then in marrying the King of the Zidonians daughter, failed not, and he married her wicked Religion. Clotildis the daughter of Clodoveus married Almaricus the Arrian, King of the Wisigots, the Maid being educated in the sound faith, but Procopius, l. 1. Bell. Gothorum said, there was never peace between them.

As for Mr. Williams Chaldean and Heathenish or American peace, we leave it to himself; the peace the people of God was to pray for, Jer.29. was onely outward prosperity, freedome from the Sword of Egypt, and from other Nations, that the captive Church might also partake of that peace. But I hope Jeremiah bade not the people of God in Judea, under the Babylonish captivity, follow an Heathenish peace, with toleration of divers Religions, or yet a Religious peace, or a Church peace, that standeth well with many Religions. Actually they [the Jews] are to denounce wrath against the Chaldee Religion, Jer.10.11. and would he have Christians all keeping such an Heathenish unity and peace, as Babylonians and Americans have, and in the mean time tolerate all Religions? Christians who have one God, and one faith, and one hope are to follow more then a Civill and Heathenish peace.

Libertines give us heathenish, not Christians peace under many Religions. It is therefore in vaine for Libertines to tell us, that Abraham lived long amongst the Canaanites, who were contrary to him in Religion, Gen.13. and Isaac with them, Gen.26. and Jacob twenty years with Laban an Idolater, Gen.31. Israel in Egypt 430 years, in Babylon 70. Israel under the Romans with Herodians, Pharisees. What of all these? the godly Rulers and Church, sometimes Pilgrims, sometimes servants, sometimes captives, never having the Sword nor power of it as Magistrates to take order with false Teachers, did peaceably dwell with them, ergo, godly Magistrates armed with the Sword, must now suffer the Sheep of Christ, to be worried and preyed upon by Wolves? this consequence is nothing, this is a facto ad jus, and to argue from the controverted practice of Heathen.
Excerpted from: A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience by Samuel Rutherford, pp. 331-334

Roger Williams: Hero or Villian?

Roger Williams is often regarded as a hero and pioneer for religious freedom. Just recently I read yet another article by a homeschool graduate praising this man. But in my opinion, far from being the father of religious liberty, Roger Williams was the spiritual father of pluralism in America– the idea that God does not speak authoritatively in the civil arena. He denied that God’s law should be the basis of our civil order. In so doing, he undermined objective truth (despite claiming to support it) because one can’t argue for an objective truth without an objective standard of right and wrong. The only absolute standard of truth (and hence right and wrong) is God’s law. Once God’s Word is discarded as the objective basis of civil law, we are left with only man’s ideas –natural law (in the French enlightenment sense), diversity, equality, majority opinion, or some other manmade standard.

Roger Williams wasn’t arguing simply for the right of Christians to differ; they already had that. Neither was he arguing that the church and state should be separate institutions; they already were. He was arguing against the authority and responsibility of the civil magistrate to enforce the law of God in society.

Today we are reaping the mature fruit of Roger William’s ideas when the Supreme Court strikes down sodomy laws, restricts states ability to outlaw abortion, or refuses to allow prayer at official functions. A nation either upholds God’s law or it upholds man’s law. There is no middle ground. It is not possible to separate the State from religion. It will always be religious. It will always enforce some standard of law. The question is: whose law will it uphold, God’s law or man’s law? Let me illustrate this from Roger Williams himself.

Roger Williams wrote a private letter to John Cotton asking for his opinion on a matter respecting freedom of conscience. When Mr. Cotton answered his questions in a private reply, Mr. Williams then published Cotton’s response along with a counter-response attacking him as a man of blood. In the preface to his book, The Bloody Tenant Washed White In The Blood Of The Lamb, Mr. Cotton wonders how this is consistent with his position. If his private letter was full of errors, why punish him by publishing it along with a scathing attack? Doesn’t he [Cotton] have liberty of conscience to believe as he sees fit? Also, why publish something so unedifying? On the other hand if his letter was true, why attack him as a man of blood?

Roger Williams had as little toleration for those who disagreed with him as the Puritans had for his erroneous ideas. Isn’t this the same sort of intolerance masquerading as tolerance that we see today?

Mr. Williams was not a consistent theologian or even an exemplary person.

• He fled England in 1630 because be could not tolerate the Anglican practice of open communion.
• He was offered a pastorate in Boston by the Puritans, which he turned down because he could not tolerate their non-separatist congregationalism.
• He was critical of the Plymouth church for not being separatist enough.
• He returned to England and was critical of the Anglican Church for being too lenient.
• He returned to Salem where he accepted a pastorate. From his pulpit be began attacking the validity of the King’s land patents. He accused the Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay authorities of essentially stealing the land from the Indians.
• He attacked the Anglican church for not being a true church
• He refused to take an oath, along with all the other residents of Massachusetts, to defend the land against enemies because that was an act of worship and would involve him in worship with unregenerate people. He essentially was denying that the civil magistrate was God’s servant, ordained to execute God’s vengeance on those that do evil (defined as breaking the law of God) and possessing the power to administer judicially binding oaths.
• He taught that regenerate and unregenerate people should not pray together – including spouses and children.
• He believed there should, therefore, be no prayer of thanks before meals.
• He nearly split the church with these ideas, committing the sin of schism. The church was saved when he went on to claim that Massachusetts’s churches (of which he was a part) were not true churches, causing people to leave him.
• He fled the state, with a few disciples, to avoid deportation to England by Massachusetts’s authorities. There he was joined by the renegade antinomian, Mrs. Hutchinson.
• From Rhode Island he reversed his position on infant baptism rejecting pædo-baptism.
• He had all his followers re-baptized and then concluded that this baptism was not valid and they would have to wait for another apostolic power.
• He withdrew from the church and decided that he could only take communion with his wife. Then he reversed himself again, deciding that it was not possible for the church to achieve purity in this life and renouncing his extreme separatism.
• He couldn’t agree with anyone, moving from England to Boston, to Salem, to Plymouth, to England, back to Salem, and then to Rhode Island within a space of 6 years.

A better analogy for this man might be Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism. They both rejected lawful authority, led gullible disciples into exile, changed their beliefs with the weather, and rejected the historic faith practiced by the church universal. I would note that this is very different from the reformers who corrected serious errors in the church by going back to the historic faith, not inventing new ideas. From the judicial safety of Rhode Island he wrote of Massachusetts,

"My end is to discover and proclaim the dying and horrible guilt of the bloody
doctrine, one of the most seditious, destructive, blasphemous, and bloodiest in
any or all the nations of the world…"

You would think he was writing about someone who had been drawn and quartered in the Spanish Inquisition instead of Governor Winthrop and his fellow pilgrims who had merely excommunicated him for heresy and sought to deport him to England.

His book, the Bloudy Tenent of Persecution, spells out in detail his rejection of God’s law as the civil law of the land. It was directly answered at the time by John Cotton and by several church councils. ( e.g. the Synod of Cambridge, New England, 1646 concerning the power of magistrates in matters of the first table.) Thankfully, for nearly 150 years, most Christians in America rejected his ideas. States required all officers, from Notary Publics to legislators, to take religious test oaths affirming the deity of Jesus Christ as the second person of the Godhead, and the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the Word of God. It wasn’t until the constitution was written that religious test oaths were removed from America.

In American jurisprudence, the 10 commandments were seen as the basis for all civil law. In many cases the statutes directly quoted or cited scripture as part of the law. Although the laws varied a little from state to state, egregious violations of all the commandments (except the 4th and 10th) were capital crimes. Gradually the capital sentence was dropped from some of the commandments and then some of the commandments themselves were dropped from our civil laws. The usual pattern has been to cease prosecuting the violation of the law and then after years of disuse, to remove it. This pattern continues to this day. Most recently states have repealed all laws regarding the 4th commandment. Violations of laws regarding the 7th commandment are rarely prosecuted and in many cases have been repealed. About all we really have left today are laws respecting the 6th and 8th commandments- except that it’s OK to murder people if they are not yet born!

Such is the legacy of rejecting God’s law as the civil law of the land.