Roger Williams offers, more than any other figure in this chapter, a rare chance to watch Tier‑2 convictions, Tier‑1 virtues, and radical contingency interacting in “real time.” His thick eschatological claim that no visible church has divine warrant in the present age never softens, yet it is precisely that Tier‑2 judgment, combined with exile, rescue, and temperament, that enables an unusually far‑reaching practice of soul‑liberty in Rhode Island.
Palimpsest and method
Over four centuries Williams has become a hermeneutical palimpsest, onto which very different projects have been written. He appears as: the troublesome Puritan heretic banished from Massachusetts Bay; the founding “saint” of Rhode Island and architect of American religious freedom; a proto–Bill of Rights liberal; a theorist of “mere civility”; and a Baptist or evangelical prophet of soul‑liberty. These layers are not mutually compatible, yet each can point to some of his words and deeds.
Modern interpreters fall roughly into three clusters. Philosophical universalists, exemplified by Martha Nussbaum, prize Williams as an early expositor of equal respect for conscience whose arguments, she suggests, “follow even if we leave aside the religious doctrines,” aligning him with Kantian dignity and Rawlsian pluralism. Historical contextualists such as Edwin Gaustad and Edmund Morgan insist that he is a “God‑intoxicated” seventeenth‑century Separatist shaped by millennial eschatology and English church politics, not a free‑standing liberal. Teresa Bejan’s “mere civility” reading offers a bridge: Williams as a realist of low‑level coexistence who allows harsh speech so long as people do not kill or banish one another.
The vignette here takes a different angle. It treats Williams as a case where a very thick Tier‑2 world—apocalyptic Protestantism, Seeker ecclesiology, biblical typology—combined with radical contingency and a distinctive character to activate a narrow but uncompromising Tier‑1 lane: the state must not touch “soules” and “consciences” in matters of faith and worship. The method is a word↔deed integrity test: what he actually writes in The Bloudy Tenent and his prefaces, and what he actually does in Providence, London, and Rhode Island, are read together to see how far that one radical lane is carried in practice.
Tier‑2 core and Milton as counter‑case
Williams’s doctrine of liberty of conscience does not arise from a general love of “freedom” in all domains; it is the consequence of a specific Tier‑2 judgment about the present age. In The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution (1644), he repeatedly turns to Christ’s parable of the wheat and the tares in Matthew 13. The servants want to uproot the tares (false believers), but the householder forbids them because their roots are intertwined with the wheat; Williams glosses this to mean that in the “field of the world,” attempts to extirpate error risk destroying true believers as well. The civil magistrate is precisely that over‑zealous servant: unable to see hearts, he must not wield the sword in matters of doctrine or worship.
From this, Williams draws a sharp jurisdictional line. The magistrate’s power is “God‑ordained” but strictly for “bodies and goods,” not for “soules” and “consciences.” Earlier “two kingdoms” and “two tables” distinctions are radicalized: the state simply has no authority over the First Table (idolatry, blasphemy, worship); it may punish theft and murder, but not heresy or false religion. By the late 1630s he has become a Seeker: he leaves the Church of England, then Congregationalism, then his brief Baptist experiment, and dies refusing to join any visible church, convinced that since Constantine the church’s purity has been fatally compromised and no valid apostolic commission exists until Christ’s return. The theological vacuum is real: all visible churches are provisional and mixed; only God can finally judge their errors at the Last Day.
John Milton, a close contemporary and friend in London, provides a revealing counter‑case. Milton shares Williams’s diagnosis that the church has been corrupted since Constantine; he too denounces prelatical structures and resists state‑imposed uniformity. Yet from similar premises he draws the opposite interim strategy. In Areopagitica he presents truth as “torn into a thousand pieces” and scattered; the point of a free press and a revolutionary state is to gather those pieces, using censorship against “Papists” and suppressing doctrines deemed politically dangerous. Milton lends his pen to Cromwell’s regime as Secretary for Foreign Tongues and defends regicide as an act of godly justice; Williams, by contrast, insists that any attempt to “force” religion usurps Christ’s prerogatives and “stinks in God’s nostrils.”
The timing matters. In the 1644 Bloudy Tenent prefaces—before Charles I’s execution and before Cromwell’s Protectorate—Williams is already telling Parliament and the “courteous reader” that Christ arms his followers only with persuasion and love, not “swords of steel,” and that coercion in religion produces hypocrites, not saints. When he returns to London in 1651–54, Milton is firmly installed in the revolutionary regime and Cromwell is ascending; Williams tutors Milton in Dutch and uses his “friends in high places, and Cromwell in the loftiest of them all,” as Gaustad puts it, to defend Rhode Island’s charter against Coddington. Yet he does not recant his earlier critique or endorse the Commonwealth as a nursing father of the true church; instead he lobbies a regime he regards as spiritually dangerous in order to preserve a small haven where no magistrate will wield the sword in religion. The Tier‑2 core remains intact; what varies is his Tier‑1 prudence and tact in pursuing limited ends under unfriendly structures.
Milton’s path shows that Williams’s theology does not entail his politics. The shared premise—Constantinian corruption and a lost true church—permits both a Cromwellian “godly state” strategy and a Rhode Island “lively experiment” strategy. Understanding why Williams took the latter, more radically non‑coercive path requires turning to contingency and character.
Contingency, temperament, and weak agency
Three elements converge in Williams’s life: a Tier‑2 theological vacuum, radical moral luck in the “winter woods,” and a distinctive temperament shaped by but not reducible to his piety. Without all three, Bloudy Tenent and the Rhode Island charter would almost certainly look different.
First, the theological vacuum: by the late 1630s Williams has concluded that no existing church possesses valid apostolic authority; all visible churches are “mixed” and fallible, and Christ alone will restore the true church at the Second Coming. This deprives magistrates of any credible claim to enforce God’s will; if no church can certify who is truly in the right, then no civil authority can punish heresy without risking violence against the unknown elect.
Second, moral luck and intercultural encounter. Banished from Massachusetts in the winter of 1635–36 for “dangerous” opinions on oaths, charters, and magistrates’ spiritual power, Williams is forced into the New England woods in harsh conditions. His life is saved not by fellow Puritans but by Wampanoag and Narragansett neighbors, who shelter him and later sell him land on which to found Providence. He spends years learning their languages and customs, producing A Key into the Language of America (1643), a pioneering ethnographic and linguistic study that emphasizes their hospitality, moral codes, and social order. The experience undermines any simple mapping of doctrine onto virtue: those his culture calls “heathens” practice forms of justice, mercy, and honesty lacking among self‑professed saints. Instead of rationalizing this away, Williams lets it reshape his practical conclusions about who may be “near” or “far” from God in the interim.
Third, temperament and internalized virtues. Contemporary testimony and his own letters depict a man both stubborn and sociable, strongly committed to truth as he sees it but unusually willing to maintain relationships with those he regards as deeply mistaken. He valorizes patience, meekness, honesty, and a refusal to force the conscience even of enemies; he spends long hours in conversation with Native leaders, quarrels with and yet protects Samuel Gorton, and in old age rows himself across Narragansett Bay to debate Quaker leaders he considers doctrinally “filthy.” These Tier‑1 traits—epistemic humility about who is saved, openness to alterity under moral luck, a disciplined refusal to coerce, and an ability to cooperate tactically with opponents—shape how far he pushes the non‑coercion logic his Tier‑2 commitments allow.
Against Milton as counter‑case, the pattern is clearer. Both men share the Tier‑2 premise of a corrupted church and a deferred true kingdom; both reject Laudian establishment. Only Williams, however, is driven into literal dependence on “heathens,” given prolonged cross‑cultural contact, and endowed with the particular mix of patience and sociability that leads him to defend the conscience of people he finds abhorrent. Milton’s world remains European and textual; Williams’s is also ethnographic and intersocietal. The theology enables his lane; the contingencies and character determine its breadth.
Rhode Island, word↔deed integrity, and limits
Williams’s words sketch a polity where the soul’s quest for God is inviolable; his deeds in Rhode Island show both the depth and the narrowness of that radicalism. After founding Providence on land purchased from Narragansett sachems Canonicus and Miantonomi, he travels to England in 1643–44 and secures the “Providence Plantations” patent, which authorizes the towns to govern themselves “by such a form of civil government as by voluntary consent of all or the greater part of them shall be found most serviceable.” Under this vague but generous grant, the 1647 code declares that “all men may walk as their consciences persuade them, every one in the name of his God,” so long as they keep the civil peace.
His later “ship of state” letter casts this in a vivid metaphor. A ship at sea carries “Papists, Protestants, Jewes and Turkes”; the captain may command obedience in civil matters—preventing mutiny, punishing theft and violence, compelling necessary work, even using “chains and whips” to preserve safety—but may not compel or forbid any passenger’s prayers or worship. Bodies and conduct may be constrained; souls may not. Here the Tier‑2 eschatology and jurisdictional line become institutional design.
The word↔deed integrity is unusually tight in this lane:
-
In Bloudy Tenent and later tracts he insists that “all men of all Nations and Countries, Jewes, Turkes, Papists, Protestants… ought freely and peaceably to enjoy their own Judgements, and Consciences in matters of Religion,” with the magistrate barred from “intermeddling” in such things. Rhode Island’s patent and 1647 code encode “full liberty in religious concernments” and leave the content of worship to each person and group.
The Quaker case is especially revealing. Seventeenth‑century Quakers often engaged in disruptive prophetic performances: entering meetings half‑naked, interrupting sermons, denouncing ministers, smashing symbolic objects. In Massachusetts such acts prompted whippings, brandings, and executions; in Rhode Island they prompted irritation but not legal persecution. Williams loathed Quaker theology and wrote a long, bitter attack in George Fox Digg’d out of his Burrowes (1676), yet he did not demand their expulsion or punishment. Late in life he rowed across Narragansett Bay to hold multi‑day public debates with them, treating argument as witness rather than as a prelude to civil sanction.
This history undercuts “mere civility” readings. Quaker behavior would fail almost any minimal civility test, yet Williams opposed using the civil sword against them; their inclusion did not depend on any agreed standard of tone. He never offers a theory of civility thresholds or sanctions; “civil peace” remains a generic common‑law phrase, stretched in practice to preserve liberty of conscience even when conscience produces incivility. What constrains is not civility but an absolute refusal to “rape” the soul.
At the same time, the Rhode Island record reveals limits. Politically, the colony remained fragmented: Providence, Portsmouth, Newport, and Warwick often behaved like semi‑autonomous city‑states, with factions leaning toward Massachusetts, Coddington’s quasi‑magisterial island regime, or Gorton’s radical Warwick experiments. Williams’s formal leadership was intermittent; he served as president only from 1654–57 and more often as mediator and envoy than as a controlling party boss. His non‑coercion principle was one force among others, not an undisputed orthodoxy. Economically and militarily, Rhode Island was weak; its relative freedom from persecution owed as much to overlapping claims and limited enforcement capacity as to theology.
Morally, his absolutism is narrow. He never extends the “infinite sanctity” he ascribes to the soul’s relation to God into a general theory of rights across domains. He accepts conscription for defensive wars, taxation, civil punishments for bodily crimes, hierarchical gender and social roles, and, with evident discomfort, some forms of servitude and slavery. After King Philip’s War he participates in or acquiesces to the enslavement of Native captives, seeking to mitigate and time‑limit such servitude but not condemning it as a violation of the same inviolable principle that makes religious coercion an abomination. In this sense, he is “radical in one lane, conventional elsewhere”: the soul’s quest for God may not be coerced, but the body and property remain subject to a range of coercions a Kantian dignity framework would at least problematize.
Afterlife and your angle
Later traditions have written their own layers over Williams’s one radical lane. Baptists and evangelicals celebrate him as an early Baptist and champion of “soul liberty,” often reframing separation of church and state as a way to protect the church from worldly corruption. Liberal and cosmopolitan readers, including Nussbaum, recast him as a forerunner of modern human rights and universal dignity, a cosmopolitan who saw all consciences as equally worthy, whose theological arguments can be rewritten in secular, Kantian‑Rawlsian terms. Bejan, meanwhile, sees in him a theorist of harsh but non‑violent coexistence, a proponent of “mere civility” who cares more about keeping the argument going than about mutual respect.
This vignette suggests a different emphasis. Williams’s thick Tier‑2 eschatology—lost apostolic authority, wheat and tares, no true church until Christ returns—created a logical space in which universal liberty of conscience became thinkable, but did not dictate how far that liberty would extend. It was the convergence of that theology with radical contingency (banishment and rescue by Native neighbors whose conduct unsettled inherited hierarchies of virtue) and with a temperament marked by patience, curiosity, and refusal to coerce that produced, in practice, an unusually comprehensive rule of non‑coercion in matters of worship. Milton, a near‑neighbor in time and belief, illustrates the alternative: from similar premises he chose the Cromwellian sword; Williams chose to row his own boat to argue with Quakers while defending the conscience of “Pagans, Jewes, Turkes” under a fragile charter.
In that sense, Williams stands alongside Cyrus, Hunayn, and Mehmed II as another instance of Tier‑1 virtues emerging inside and against thick cultures under conditions of moral luck—but here the interior map is unusually visible, and the word↔deed integrity in one lane unusually stark.
He explicitly names “Pagans, Jewes, Turkes” among those whose consciences must not be coerced, and argues that forcing anyone—even an atheist—to swear religious oaths constitutes a profanation of God’s name. In practice, Rhode Island becomes a haven for Anabaptists, Quakers, Jews in Newport, and others “distressed for conscience,” and Williams consistently opposes importing Massachusetts‑style persecution.
He portrays the state as a “non‑religious ship” whose officers enforce only civil peace; the actual arrangements he defends confine magistrates to the “Second Table” offenses of theft, violence, and disorder, not idolatry or doctrinal error.
No comments:
Post a Comment