William Bradford Institute
for Study of the
Early Settlement of America

A Plea for Religious Liberty

by Roger Wiliams1

[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

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 Nimrods2 (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 hetergeneal3 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 Brentius4 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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.


Promoting a Greater Understanding of the Pilgrims and Puritans