 |
| "The Snake in the Grass or Satan Transform'd to an Angel of Light," title page by Richard Gaywood, paper, etching, 148 mm x 93 mm. At the sides are a Puritan and a Covenanter above an author writing.{{PD-1996}} |
The colonists from the early 1600's through to the writing of the Constitution witnessed time and time again people willing to endure much persecution for their beliefs. Thus, many came to understand a person's conscience cannot be bent to the will of the government or other rulers. To change what a person believes at the core of their being requires an act of God, not of man. A battle for a person's freedom of conscience played a significant role in the war for human rights.
The anabaptist groups, like the Baptists and the Quakers, were demonized by the courts for not baptizing their infants. The Puritans, from which the Congregational Churches were formed, came out of the Church of England (many of the preachers having been trained by that church), held to the doctrine of infant baptism so strongly that they viewed anyone not baptizing their infant a messenger of Satan:
"'Tis Satan's policy to plead for an indefinite and boundless toleration." Thomas Shepherd, "Election Sermon" (1672), p. 24
"The Lord keep us from being bewitched with the whore's cup, lest while we seem to detest and reject her with open face of profession, we do not bring her in by a back door of toleration." John Cotton, "Bloody Tenet Washed," p. 132, 192
"The Loud outcry of some is for liberty of conscience … I look upon an unbounded toleration as the first born of all abominations." Reverend Urian Oakes, president of Harvard in 1675. http://mises.org/daily/5966/The-Libertarian-Origins-of-Rhode-IslandReflecting upon this battle in Colonial times, I could not help but see the parallel in our own times. The cry of anger against evangelical, Bible-believing churches (indeed all who lay claim to the title: 'Christian') no longer comes from a state church but from secularists, atheists, and those in the government who have little regard for true freedom of conscience. They tote toleration while denying business owners liberty of conscience on how they run their business. There is little difference between the above quotes and the actions and words of those who wish to impose laws that are contrary to the conscience of the business owner or the individual.
The Anabaptist groups (like the Quakers and the Baptists and the Seekers) continued to stand for their beliefs, against all persecutions: from arrests, to whippings, to hangings. They did not waiver. Such conviction led others to embrace their freedoms and even their faith. People gave up their positions, their wealth, their homes in order to hold to their core beliefs. And by standing firm, drawing others to them, they eventually won for us religious freedom...which I fear we are losing, particularly if we (out of fear of losing our comforts and 'peace') refuse to stand firm on God's Word--on God's Truth, and not man's--no matter the cost.
The Bible does teach us to obey the laws of the land and live peaceably, but not to the extent of denying Christ or denying God's laws. God's laws must come first in our lives. God, our Creator, knows what is best for us. He gave us those laws, those instructions on how to live, because He knew that to work contrary to them would lead to destruction. He didn't want that for us. As an example to us, He gave Peter and the other apostles courage to say, "We ought to obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29)
When you are facing opposition to what you claim is your faith, are you willing to say as the apostles did, "We ought to obey God rather than men"?
"I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because thy are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from evil."
John 17:14-15
