Pastor Charles Cummings: Armed and Preaching the Gospel in the 1700s

The following is an account of Pastor Charles Cummings, a preacher of the Gospel in the 1700s and defender of his fellow man. Cummings had his gun handy when preaching, and even used it to fend off Indian attackers. He was nicknamed "The Fighting Parson."

The first church erected for Cummings at Sinking Spring was a log-cabin of rough logs, about eighty feet long and forty feet wide. The church at Ebbing Spring was of the same shape, but not so large. Every Sunday morning, we are told, it was the habit of Cummings to dress himself neatly, then put on his bullet pouch, mount his horse and, with his rifle in his hand, ride off to one of his churches. Each man in the congregation also brought a rifle to the church and usually held it in his hands during the time of public worship. This was done to guard against any sudden attack that the Indians might make against them. When Cummings went into the pulpit, he was in the habit of setting his rifle in a corner near him. Then he took off his bullet pouch and began the religious service. ...

A large plantation called the Royal Oak, on the Holston River, was the home of that branch of the Campbell family of which Colonel Arthur Campbell was a member. General William Campbell, a cousin of Arthur, lived in the same county. The members of both of these households attended the churches of Charles Cummings. On a little hill south of Abingdon, "and on the spot where David Campbell's gate stands," a fort was built to protect the settlers against Indians. To that fort Cummings always took his family in times of danger. In July, 1776, Cummings left his family in the fort, and with three of his neighbors and a servant, started in a wagon toward his farm. Not far from the church a body of Indians attacked them. The driver of the wagon was killed at the first fire and, a little later, the two other neighbors were wounded. Cummings and his servant, whose name was Job, both of them armed with good rifles, kept up the fight and drove the Indians away. Friends ran out from the fort and helped to bring in the men who had been shot down. In October, 1776, Cummings went with Colonel William Christian's expedition against the Cherokee Indians in the Tennessee country. Joseph Rhea, another preacher, also marched with the soldiers. Cummings and Rhea preached to the men at every camping-place along the way, with their rifles always near at hand. This was the first regular preaching of the gospel within the present State of Tennessee.

Henry Alexander White, Southern Presbyterian Leaders (NY: The Neale Publishing Company, 1911), 101, 102.

Armed and Ready: the Puritan Tradition of Bringing Guns to Services

Due to living in a hostile, anti-Christian environment with Indians who did not know the Lord, the New England Puritans thought it best to come to services armed in order to protect their fellow Christians from attack.

The following account by Alice Morse Earle in "The Sabbath in Puritan New England" discusses this in detail, and explains the tradition of men sitting on the ends of the pews so they could quickly grab their arms in the case of attack. 


From "The Sabbath in Puritan New England" 

For many years after the settlement of New England the Puritans, even in outwardly tranquil times, went armed to meeting; and to sanctify the Sunday gun-loading they were expressly forbidden to fire off their charges at any object on that day save an Indian or a wolf, their two "greatest inconveniencies." Trumbull, in his "Mac Fingal," writes thus in jest of this custom of Sunday arm-bearing:--

  "So once, for fear of Indian beating,

  Our grandsires bore their guns to meeting,--

  Each man equipped on Sunday morn

  With psalm-book, shot, and powder-horn,

  And looked in form, as all must grant,

  Like the ancient true church militant."

In 1640 it was ordered in Massachusetts that in every township the attendants at church should carry a "competent number of peeces, fixed and compleat with powder and shot and swords every Lords-day to the meeting-house;" one armed man from each household was then thought advisable and necessary for public safety. In 1642 six men with muskets and powder and shot were thought sufficient for protection for each church. In Connecticut similar mandates were issued, and as the orders were neglected "by divers persones," a law was passed in 1643 that each offender should forfeit twelve pence for each offence. In 1644 a fourth part of the "trayned hand" was obliged to come armed each Sabbath, and the sentinels were ordered to keep their matches constantly lighted for use in their match-locks. They were also commanded to wear armor, which consisted of "coats basted with cotton-wool, and thus made defensive against Indian arrows." In 1650 so much dread and fear were felt of Sunday attacks from the red men that the Sabbath-Day guard was doubled in number. In 1692, the Connecticut Legislature ordered one fifth of the soldiers in each town to come armed to each meeting, and that nowhere should be present as a guard at time of public worship fewer than eight soldiers and a sergeant. In Hadley the guard was allowed annually from the public treasury a pound of lead and a pound of powder to each soldier.

No details that could add to safety on the Sabbath were forgotten or overlooked by the New Haven church; bullets were made common currency at the value of a farthing, in order that they might be plentiful and in every one's possession; the colonists were enjoined to determine in advance what to do with the women and children in case of attack, "that they do not hang about them and hinder them;" the men were ordered to bring at least six charges of powder and shot to meeting; the farmers were forbidden to "leave more arms at home than men to use them;" the half-pikes were to be headed and the whole ones mended, and the swords "and all piercing weapons furbished up and dressed;" wood was to be placed in the watch-house; it was ordered that the "door of the meeting-house next the soldiers' seat be kept clear from women and children sitting there, that if there be occasion for the soldiers to go suddenly forth, they may have free passage." The soldiers sat on either side of the main door, a sentinel was stationed in the meeting-house turret, and armed watchers paced the streets; three cannon were mounted by the side of this "church militant," which must strongly have resembled a garrison. ...

In spite of these events in the New Haven church (which were certainly exceptional), the seemingly incongruous union of church and army was suitable enough in a community that always began and ended the military exercises on "training day" with solemn prayer and psalm-singing; and that used the army and encouraged a true soldier-like spirit not chiefly as aids in war, but to help to conquer and destroy the adversaries of truth, and to "achieve greater matters by this little handful of men than the world is aware of."

The Salem sentinels wore doubtless some of the good English armor owned by the town,--corselets to cover the body; gorgets to guard the throat; tasses to protect the thighs; all varnished black, and costing each suit "twenty-four shillings a peece." The sentry also wore a bandileer, a large "neat's leather" belt thrown over the right shoulder, and hanging down under the left arm. This bandileer sustained twelve boxes of cartridges, and a well-filled bullet-bag. Each man bore either a "bastard musket with a snaphance," a "long fowling-piece with musket bore," a "full musket," a "barrell with a match-cock," or perhaps (for they were purchased by the town) a leather gun (though these leather guns may have been cannon). Other weapons there were to choose from, mysterious in name, "sakers, minions, ffaulcons, rabinets, murthers (or murderers, as they were sometimes appropriately called) chambers, harque-busses, carbins," ...

The armed Salem watcher, besides his firearms and ammunition, had attached to his wrist by a cord a gun-rest, or gun-fork, which he placed upon the ground when he wished to fire his musket, and upon which that constitutional kicker rested when touched off. He also carried a sword and sometimes a pike, and thus heavily burdened with multitudinous arms and cumbersome armor, could never have run after or from an Indian with much agility or celerity; though he could stand at the church-door with his leather gun,--an awe-inspiring figure,--and he could shoot with his "harquebuss," or "carbin," as we well know.

These armed "sentinells" are always regarded as a most picturesque accompaniment of Puritan religious worship, and the Salem and Plymouth armed men were imposing, though clumsy. But the New Haven soldiers, with their bulky garments wadded and stuffed out with thick layers of cotton wool, must have been more safety-assuring and comforting than they were romantic or heroic; but perhaps they too wore painted tin armor, "corselets and gorgets and tasses."

In Concord, New Hampshire, the men, who all came armed to meeting, stacked their muskets around a post in the middle of the church, while the honored pastor, who was a good shot and owned the best gun in the settlement, preached with his treasured weapon in the pulpit by his side, ready from his post of vantage to blaze away at any red man whom he saw sneaking without, or to lead, if necessary, his congregation to battle. The church in York, Maine, until the year 1746, felt it necessary to retain the custom of carrying arms to the meeting-house, so plentiful and so aggressive were Maine Indians.

Not only in the time of Indian wars were armed men seen in the meeting-house, but on June 17, 1775, the Provincial Congress recommended that the men "within twenty miles of the sea-coast carry their arms and ammunition with them to meeting on the Sabbath and other days when they meet for public worship." And on many a Sabbath and Lecture Day, during the years of war that followed, were proved the wisdom and foresight of that suggestion.

The men in those old days of the seventeenth century, when in constant dread of attacks by Indians, always rose when the services were ended and left the house before the women and children, thus making sure the safe exit of the latter. This custom prevailed from habit until a late date in many churches in New England, all the men, after the benediction and the exit of the parson, walking out in advance of the women. So also the custom of the men always sitting at the "head" or door of the pew arose from the early necessity of their always being ready to seize their arms and rush unobstructed to fight. In some New England village churches to this day, the man who would move down from his end of the pew and let a woman sit at the door, even if it were a more desirable seat from which to see the clergyman, would be thought a poor sort of a creature.


Alice Morse Earle, The Sabbath in Puritan New England (NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1891), 19-25.

On William Cecil (Queen Elizabeth's right-hand-man) and Biblical Law

"[T]he state could never be in safety, where there was toleration of two religions. For there is no enmity so great as that for religion, and they that differ in the service of God can never agree in the service of their country." -- William Cecil

William Cecil (1520-1598), as known as 1st Baron Burghley, was an English statesman and Queen Elizabeth I's right-hand-man, serving as Lord High Treasurer and Chief Advisor. Here we discuss the following as it relates to Cecil:

• Religious views and approach to Puritans and Catholics
• On inflation
• On a Protestant league 
• Obedience to God necessary for national peace
• The challenge of religious toleration
• Applying Biblical law to the question of usury

Religious views and approach to Puritans and Catholics

While the Puritans were not treated the best during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, Cecil could be said, at least at times, to be a friend of the Puritans:

The enigma of Cecil's religious views has produced conflicting comment. An early writer argued that in religious matters Cecil dissented from both Puritans and Catholics, disliking the singularity of the former and the superstition of the latter. Yet he shared the mood of the Puritans during the first dozen years of the era; he thought highly of John Calvin; he patronized the Puritan leaders Peter Wentworth, James Morice, and Robert Beale; he appointed the Presbyterian Walter Travers to a lectureship at the Temple and possibly as tutor to his son Robert; and he sought to mitigate Whitgift's hostility to the Puritans. Significantly, however, neither his advice to his son nor his will (the overseer of which was Whitgift) reveals Puritanism. Edward Dering, Puritan rector of Pluckley, Kent regarded him as a friend of the Puritans, yet chided him in 1570 that "you have Dealt hardly with God's children and your brethren." 

Richard L. Greaves, Society and Religion in Elizabethan England (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1981), 10, 11.

One author says this about the Christian life of Cecil, as well as his opposition to Catholicism:

William Cecil was a devout and learned Christian, deeply committed to the branch of Protestantism which had over the course of the middle decades of the sixteenth century become manifest in the Church of England. And, like many Englishmen of his generation who reached adulthood in the reign of Henry VIII, he harboured a deep-seated fear of Catholicism. For Cecil, however, an ideological opposition to Catholicism, born of an education in a Protestant environment at the university Cambridge and nurtured by an awareness, open to him through his political service, of the interrelatedness of religion and the survival of the Tudor monarchy, accentuated this fear. The rebellions in Munster and Leinster (1579-83), which enjoyed the military and financial support of Pope Gregory XIII, and then the ever-present threat of a Spanish invasion of the Tudor kingdoms in the 1580s and 1590s, served only to reinforce these sentiments. 

Christopher Maginn, William Cecil, Ireland, and the Tudor State (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 165.

On inflation

Queen Elizabeth faced the challenge of inflation caused by coin debasement prior to her reign. This

made it harder and harder for English merchants to buy abroad. This, it was believed, was the source of the rapid inflation, a concept summed up in the economic law, named for Sir Thomas Gresham, that bad, debased money drives out good money. 

Norman Jones, Governing by Virtue: Lord Burghley and the Management of Elizabethan England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 143.

As such, Cecil wrote for Elizabeth a "Summary of Certain Reasons" in defense of recoinage: 

A thoroughly monetarist document, it explained inflation as caused by debased coins, since all products of the earth would otherwise have stable prices. Moreover, bad coins force English people to import more than export. He held that the realm cannot be rich if its coins are poor, clinching his point with a quote from Cato. The proclamation was carefully edited and improved by Cecil, in whose own hand we find the declaration that England is like "them that being sick receive a medicine, and in the taking feel some bitterness, but yet thereby recover health and strength, and save their lives."

Ibid. Citation from The National Archives of the UK, Kew, SP 12/13 fol. 115.

 Thus, Cecil concludes,

[H]er most honorable good meaning shalbe embraced of all her good loving subjects and every person with good will yield to bear a small burden for a time to avoid a perpetual oppression not only of themselves and their posterity but also of the whole commonwealth.

Ibid. Citation from The National Archives of the UK, Kew, SP 12/13 fols 105v, 107.

On a Protestant league 

Cecil proposed a united front with Protestant countries facing the tyranny of Catholicism. For Cecil,

[A]ll nations who accept the authority of the Bishop of Rome feel it is their duty, in conscience, to persecute "with all violence" the recusants in their midst. It follows that the same states that persecute their recusant Protestant citizens will also attack Protestant states. ...

[Cecil] proposed that England ally with all those who had a quarrel with the supporters of the tyranny of Rome. 

Norman Jones, Governing by Virtue: Lord Burghley and the Management of Elizabethan England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 200.

Obedience to God necessary for national peace

Cecil understood the role God's blessings and judgments played in a nation's prosperity:

England had, he said, "enjoyed, by God's goodness, a certain singular privilege of peace, when no other had it; so ought men to fear, for the displeasure of Almighty God against the abundance of sin and irreligion," that God would send civil and foreign war as a chastisement. ... he returns to pleasing God by enforcing the law as the first defense against condign punishment. 

Norman Jones, Governing by Virtue: Lord Burghley and the Management of Elizabethan England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 200, 201.

The challenge of religious toleration

In the Western experiment of toleration of all religions, we are seeing increasing societal breakdown, tyranny, and anarchy, as well as the persecution of Christians. Cecil understood well the antithesis between Christianity and other religions, and thus said, 

[T]he state could never be in safety, where there was toleration of two religions. For there is no enmity so great as that for religion, and they that differ in the service of God can never agree in the service of their country.

Conrad Russell, The Crisis of Parliaments: English History 1509-1660 (Oxford University Press, 1971), 149.

"[Cecil] clearly believed that human law must conform to
God's law, and that God was the ultimate arbiter of
the legal issue." -- Norman L. Jones, on Cecil's approach
to legislation about usury

Applying Biblical law to the question of usury

(Note: here we explore Cecil's views of usury in the context of him attempting to apply Scripture to law and society, regardless of whether he properly understood what Scripture has to say in the matter. However, for a historical perspective on usury, a good place to start may be The Economists of the Reformation: An Overview of Reformation Teaching Concerning Work, Wealth, and Interest by David H. Eaton.)

Cecil's thoughts on a Bill in the House of Commons in April 1571 regarding usury shows how he considered Scripture in the making of law. These thoughts are reflected in a written formal analysis by Cecil. [Norman L. Jones, "William Cecil and the making of economic policy in the 1560s and early 1570s," in Paul A. Fideler and T.F. Mayer, eds., Political Thought and the Tudor Commonwealth: Deep structure, discourse and disguise (New York, NY: Routledge, 1992), 177.]

Prominent in his analysis is whether God's Word forbids usury. Norman L. Jones writes, 

Cecil notes that it is forbidden in Exodus 22, Leviticus 25 and Deuteronomy 23. It is dissuaded in Nehemiah, Psalms and Ezekiel. (Ibid., 182)

Some passages on usury (lending at interest) considered by Cecil include the following: 

If you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor, you shall not be like a moneylender to him, and you shall not exact interest from him. (Exodus 22:25)

You shall not charge interest on loans to your brother, interest on money, interest on food, interest on anything that is lent for interest. You may charge a foreigner interest, but you may not charge your brother interest, that the Lord your God may bless you in all that you undertake in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. (Deuteronomy 23: 19, 20)

Cecil considered whether lending at interest is forbidden absolutely in Scripture, or only insofar as it amounts to oppression. (Ibid.)

In looking to the Old Testament and considering whether the law against usury was binding, Cecil appears to affirm the standard Reformed position that, while the judicial laws of Moses were to some extent uniquely framed for the Jews, their moral equity applies to all nations. 

There is, then, a two-fold division of the judicial law, which identifies some judicial laws as not being based on the moral law (the "judicial law proper"), and other judicial laws being grounded in the moral law. The former category was just for the state of Israel, while the latter category is for all men at all times. However, there may have been a degree of general equity for even judicial laws primarily for the state of Israel. 

(More on the historical view of the judicial law here.)

And so, on Cecil's consideration of the judicial law and usury, Norman L. Jones writes: 

Thus for Cecil to answer his questions about usury he had to resolve for himself the problem of whether the anti-usury passages in the Old Testament applied to everyone at all times -- were a moral law -- or whether they formed a judicial law, binding only the Jews at the time they were promulgated. If they were a moral law, lending at interest must always be forbidden. If they were a judicial law, the judicial law of England need not slavishly follow their lead so long as the rule of equity was not broken. 

His analysis of the question of whether the biblical prohibition of usury had to be enforced by Parliament begins with an objection: that it was a judicial law not a moral one. He answers with two responses. The first is summarized in his comment that to argue that it was a Jewish law and does not apply to 'us' is to argue to the person, not to the thing. 

His second response was to observe that it was a moral law, and that it still prohibited usury, for under the precept 'you shall not steal' usury is prohibited because it is a form of theft. Besides, all judicial laws are reducible to moral laws at some point. Moral law that gave rise to the judicial law was based on God's general prohibitions of theft and oppression, especially oppression of widows and orphans. (Ibid., 184.)

Note how carefully Cecil tries to understand the applicability of the Scriptural prohibition of usury to today; he seeks to determine whether there is equity within the Old Testament prohibition of usury based on whether it was grounded in a moral law (in this case, the Eighth Commandment). 

Not all of Cecil's considerations when determining whether usury should be prohibited are biblical; for instance, he also ponders whether it is convenient for the state to prohibit usury, even if it is lawful in the New Covenant era. Hence here we find Cecil lacking a total regulation of the state by Scripture. 

Nevertheless, his thorough consideration of Scripture to this matter is admirable. Rightfully or wrongfully, Cecil ultimately came to the following conclusion:

Having clearly concluded that usury was wrong and forbidden by God, he also seems to have decided that the definition of usury allowed some lending at interest to be done, so long as it was permitted in order to prevent a greater evil. (Ibid., 190)  

England's bill on usury that was being considered ultimately conformed to this view (Ibid., 190, 191). 

Norman L. Jones summarizes Cecil's approach to legislation:

The attempt made by Cecil, the most powerful man in the English government, to define usury shows how closely his approach to legislation was linked to his religion and his education. (Ibid., p. 191) 

He clearly believed that human law must conform to God's law, and that God was the ultimate arbiter of this legal issue. (Ibid., 178)

Samoa Officially Becomes a Christian State (Theonomy Applied)

The June 16 article in The Diplomat, titled "Samoa Officially Becomes a Christian State" by Grant Wyeth, states, 

In early June, the Samoan Parliament passed a bill amending the constitution to transform the country from a secular to a Christian state. The objective of the amendment was “to insert in the Constitution that Samoa is a Christian nation to declare the dominance of Christianity in Samoa.” ...

Samoa already had a reference to Christianity in the preamble to its Constitution, which declared that the Samoan government should conduct itself “within the limits prescribed by God’s commandments,” and that Samoan society is “based on Christian principles.” This kind of wording is common in the preambles of constitutions among Pacific Island states (the exception being Fiji). 

Apparently, Samoa recognizes the failure and danger of a religiously pluralistic state. According to the article, a motivation for this appears to be out of fear of "religious wars":

Prime Minister Tuilaepa Malielegaoi sees ... “religious wars” currently playing out at a global level, and that these are leading to civil wars within countries. ...
Tuilaepa believes that it is now the government’s duty to legislate to avoid religious tensions. This line of thinking indicates that it is the secular state that provides the environment for religious tensions to ferment, and that a country which legally enshrines a religion will avoid creating these tensions.

Another motivation for the constitutional change, according to the article, is to protect the culture from other states pressuring it to promote such non-Christian ideas as homosexuality.

Read the full article here. 

One important factor to note is that several groups in Samoa identify as Christians, including Protestants, Catholics, and Mormons. Hopefully Samoa will narrow the definition of Christian to historical orthodox Protestantism. 

Emperor Theodosius Ends the Pagan Olympics (Theonomy Applied)

Theodosius I (347-395)—also known as Theodosius the Great—was emperor of Rome from 379-395. At this time the Roman Empire had been greatly influenced by Christianity, but still had some pagan influences as well. 

During his reign, Emperor Theodosius set out to topple the remnants of pagandom by banning idolatry and pagan ceremonies. This had enormous consequences for the Olympics, since pagan practices were foundational to it. 

Background of the pagan Olympics

The Olympics displayed the violence of pagan cultures. This was especially the case in a form of fighting called the pankration, which combined boxing, wrestling, and street fighting. Participants could do such things as groin kicks, dislocate their opponents shoulders and ankles, and even chokeholds. One contestant nicknamed "Mr. Digits" was known for breaking his adversaries' fingers; another, named Damoxenos, once pierced through an opponents rib cage with a finger thrust and pulled out his opponent's intestines.[1]

Steven Gertz describes the Olympics overtly pagan practices:

Before the Games began, competitors processed to the village of Piera on the outskirts of Olympia. There, priests sacrificed a fat pig to Zeus, and the athletes participated in a ceremony of purification. Once the contestants had been confirmed, the priests repeated the ceremony, this time sacrificing a pig and sheep before the colossal statue of Zeus in Olympia. The athletes then swore allegiance to the Greek gods and fidelity to Zeus.

Nor were the gods relegated to the opening ceremonies. Winners of events visited the Temple of Zeus to sacrifice to the gods, and half of every animal was delivered to the priests to be prepared for the Olympic feast. That feast, held on the third day of the Games, was marked by a procession—priests scooped up glowing embers from the fire of Hestia, goddess of the hearth, then carried those embers past spectators singing a hymn to Zeus. Arriving at the Temple of Zeus, the priests mounted the steps and lit the fire in the altar with the embers. There, the priests slaughtered and sacrificed 100 bulls—one at a time—after which the feasting began.

If this wasn't offensive enough to Christian sensibilities, Greek men competed in the nude—apparently, one runner early in the Games' history lost his loincloth en route and ended up winning the race, thereby encouraging everyone else to follow suit. Married women were not allowed in the stands; women who flouted this prohibition ran the risk of being pitched head first off of nearby cliffs. But unmarried women were allowed to watch; and hetaeras, or "high-class" escort girls, would prostitute themselves during the banquets for Olympic victors. Some of these women likely came from the population of temple prostitutes dedicated to Aphrodite, goddess of love and sex.[2]

Emperor Theodosius takes action

"Theodosius [above] ...
in his faith wiped out all
worship of graven images,
and trampled down their
ceremonies."
-- Ambrose

The reign of Theodosius was a triumph against paganism, as the emperor took decisive action against anti-Christian religious practices. The Bishop Ambrose, who lived during this time, favorably summarizes this era:

Theodosius who, after the example of Jacob, supplanted perfidious tyrants and banished the idols of the gentiles; who in his faith wiped out all worship of graven images, and trampled down their ceremonies.[3]

Naturally, the pagan Olympics would be affected by Theodosius' campaign to demolish paganism; while the games to some extent or another may have continued, their particularly pagan rites would cease:

Though Theodosius does not target the Games specifically, his laws contributed to the eventual downfall of the Games at Olympia due to the prohibition of pagan practices. It appears that this point can be held as a source for histories blaming Theodosius for the prohibition of the Olympic Games. Downey assesses that the laws affected the character of the Games but, though many pagans such as in the letters of Libanius saw the Games as unaltered, the festival could no longer be seen as in honour of Olympian Zeus and lost some of their traditional Greek identity. Fowden specifies that the “externals of the pagan cults were dismantled.”[4]

Hillgarth explains that Theodosius I banned the use of areas of pagan worship such as temples and sanctuaries in XVI, 1, 2 (380). Theodosian code cites that “their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches,”[5] and that all pagan sites of worship should be abandoned in sight of the law and the new Christian dogma.  Young explains that the focal point of Olympia was the sanctuary of Zeus and the “renowned temple of Olympian Zeus.”[6] The Olympic Games focused significantly on becoming closer to the gods, to be the very best, and the sanctuary was an important and essential part of this ancient Greek ideal. ...

Theodosian code states that “no person at all, of any class or order whatsoever of men or of dignities,…shall sacrifice an innocent victim to senseless images in any place at all or in any city.”[7] As much of traditional Greek festivities and Games included sacrifice to the gods as a key aspect, the prohibition of such acts would have had a direct effect on events such as the Olympic Games.[8]

In 426, Emperor Theodosius II finished some of the work that his grandfather started by burning the Temple of Zeus and other Olympia buildings to the ground.[9] He demolished the great stadium of Olympia—which could hold up to more than 40,000 people.[10] 

The Olympics—at least in their outwardly pagan form—had been vanquished. 

Because pagan practices were so foundational to the Olympics, the decrees of Theodosius had inflicted such a wound that it would be centuries before the games would reemerge in a major way.

The Pagan Olympics return (why we need more like Theodosius)

Over time, the West would apostatize and repaganize. As such, it is no surprise that in 1896, the Olympics would become repopularized on a global scale. And since idolatry is the natural means by which pagan man seeks global unity, the pagan religious rites would return as well:

The term "Olympic Games" was still used about the local contests held in some Greek villages by the time a French educator, Baron Pierre de Coubertin, organized the first "Olympic Games of the Modern Era" in Athens in 1896. It had already been used about other attempted revivals, as in Paris on a local scale a century before during the French Revolution, and for Scandinavia in Ramlösa in Sweden in 1834 and 1836, aside from Panhellenic Games held in 1859 and 1875—all without lasting success. The tide only turned with the "Congress for the Reestablishment of the Olympic Games." It opened at the University of Paris on June 16, 1894, with a performance of the Hymn to Apollo just discovered in May 1893, which used to open the Pythian Games. Set to music by the composer Gabriel Fauré, it was sung against the evocative classical backdrop of Pierré Puvis de Chavannes's mural painting "The Sacred Grove" at the Sorbonne.[11]

The writer adds that the modern Olympics' invented traditions

express a need to present them as being in some sort of spiritual continuity with their ancient model, as if they were passing on the flame of classical agon and arete through time. This is why the Olympic flame (meant to recall the one that used to be kept on an altar for the duration of an ancient Olympiad) is still kindled using the sun's rays in a historical reenactment of the rite in the ruins of Olympia's temple of Hera. It is then relayed through space by runners to a new site every four years—often halfway around the globe, which cosmopolitan Western culture now encompasses, as the distant forbear it has in Hellenistic civilization did the classical Mediterranean world.[12]

While we by no means endorse the Greek Orthodox church, it was rightly morally outraged at the revival of the pagan Olympics:

The popular and zealous preacher, Apostolos Makrakis, had also protested the Athens Olympic games of 1896 and the Olympic Anthem as "an introduction of the ancient pagan spirit of error and wickedness." The Holy Synod denied permission to a priest seeking to participate in the Marathon race of 1896. The ceremonial lighting of the flame for the Berlin Olympic games of 1936 in Nazi Germany and the introduction of the Olympic Torch Relay for the first time brought similar complaints in the official bulletin of the Church of Greece, calling these pagan-like rituals unworthy of the Greek people.[13]

On the paganism in the opening ceremony of the 2004 Olympics, Gertz writes:

It begins with an austere mask shattering into pieces, revealing the true focus of this magical night—the human body. Minutes later, a centaur (half human, half horse) launches into the darkness a "javelin," a shaft of light arching through the air. Then the Greek god Eros descends over scantily clad lovers sensually clutching and releasing each other as they frolic in the water. Finally the procession of Greek history begins, with float after float parading the progress of Greek sport, science, mathematics, warfare, theatre, and—culminating in the persona of the goddess Athena and a replica of the Parthenon—religion. Over all this, Eros hovers, as though the god of love is guiding the course of human history.[14]

Unsurprisingly, the Olympic anthem included the following idolatrous words:

Ancient Immortal Spirit, chaste Father of all that is Beauty, Grandeur and Truth Descending appear with Thy presence Illumine Thine Earth and the Heavens. Shine upon noble endeavors wrought at the Games on Track and in the Field … To Thine Temple, to Thy Worship, come all. Oh! Ancient Eternal Spirit![15]

But while the pagan games have returned in a major way, they will not last forever. God will destroy them in one way or another; perhaps by means of civil rulers again. That is, if and when civil rulers realize again their duty as ministers of God, then they will once again put an end to these idolatrous pagan rites. 

And the work of Theodosius was not in vain. Most importantly, God was glorified in his actions. But also, he serves as an important example to future ministers of God—an encouragement to continue the fight for the crown rights of Jesus Christ and to ban the promotion of paganism. 

Notes
________________________________

[1] Steven Gertz, "Revisiting the Pagan Olympic Games," in Christianity Today (2004, posted online August 8, 2008), 2. Retrieved February 4, 2014, from http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/news/2004/aug19.html?start=1

[2] Ibid.

[3] Cited in Ibid., 3. 
[4] G. Fowden, Bishops and Temples in the Eastern Roman Empire A.D. 320-435 (1978).

[5] Theodosian Code, XVI, 1, 2, (380) in J. N. Hillgarth, Christianity and Paganism, 350-750: The Conversion of Western Europe (Pennsylvania, 1969), 46.

[6] D. C. Young, A Brief History of the Olympic Games (Cornwell, 2004), 60.

[7] Hillgarth, Christianity and Paganism, 46.

[8] Jenni Irving, "The Fall of the Ancient Olympics: The Theodosian Code," in GraecoMuse (February 17, 2012). Retrieved February 5, 2014 from http://graecomuse.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/the-fall-of-the-ancient-olympics-the-theodosian-code/.

[9] Louis Pritchard, ed., Eyewitness Olympics (New York, NY: DK Publishing, Inc., 2005), 12.
[10] Gertz, "Revisiting the Pagan Olympic Games," 1.
[11] Christian Roy, Traditional Festivals: A Multicultural Encyclopedia (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO Inc., 2005), 166.

[12] Ibid., 166, 167.

[13] Vasilios N. Makrides, Hellenic Temples and Christian Churches: A Concise History of the Religious Cultures of Greece from Antiquity to the Present (NY: New York University Press, 2009), 150.

[14]  Gertz, "Revisiting the Pagan Olympic Games," 1.

[15] Ibid., 3.

photo credits:
Discus Thrower

© Deutsche Fotothek‎ / Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0 DE)

Theodosius

© Henryart / Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Note about the Theonomy Applied Series: In quoting any particular law, we do not necessarily endorse every aspect of that law as biblical, whether it be the prohibition, sanction, court procedure, etc. Rather, we are merely showing the more or less attempt to apply biblical law in history, whether or not that application was fully biblical. Moreover, in quoting any particular law, we do not necessarily consider those who passed and/or enforced such a law as being fully orthodox in their Christian theology. Professing Christian rulers in history have ranged in their theology from being orthodox (that is, Reformed Protestants) to heretical (for example, Roman Catholics).  

Law Enforcement in the Scriptures

The website for the Fellowship of Christian Peace Officers -- USA includes a post with a list from Scripture "where the role, service, office, or type of law enforcement officers" is said to be "found either implicitly or explicitly." One may or may not agree with all of the author's interpretations of the passages given, but the list is interesting.

Read the list here  


   

Armed and Ready: the Puritan Tradition of Bringing Guns to Services

Due to living in a hostile, anti-Christian environment with Indians who did not know the Lord, the New England Puritans thought it best to come to services armed in order to protect their fellow Christians from attack.

The following account by Alice Morse Earle in "The Sabbath in Puritan New England" discusses this in detail, and explains the tradition of men sitting on the ends of the pews so they could quickly grab their arms in the case of attack. 


From "The Sabbath in Puritan New England" 

For many years after the settlement of New England the Puritans, even in outwardly tranquil times, went armed to meeting; and to sanctify the Sunday gun-loading they were expressly forbidden to fire off their charges at any object on that day save an Indian or a wolf, their two "greatest inconveniencies." Trumbull, in his "Mac Fingal," writes thus in jest of this custom of Sunday arm-bearing:--

  "So once, for fear of Indian beating,

  Our grandsires bore their guns to meeting,--

  Each man equipped on Sunday morn

  With psalm-book, shot, and powder-horn,

  And looked in form, as all must grant,

  Like the ancient true church militant."

In 1640 it was ordered in Massachusetts that in every township the attendants at church should carry a "competent number of peeces, fixed and compleat with powder and shot and swords every Lords-day to the meeting-house;" one armed man from each household was then thought advisable and necessary for public safety. In 1642 six men with muskets and powder and shot were thought sufficient for protection for each church. In Connecticut similar mandates were issued, and as the orders were neglected "by divers persones," a law was passed in 1643 that each offender should forfeit twelve pence for each offence. In 1644 a fourth part of the "trayned hand" was obliged to come armed each Sabbath, and the sentinels were ordered to keep their matches constantly lighted for use in their match-locks. They were also commanded to wear armor, which consisted of "coats basted with cotton-wool, and thus made defensive against Indian arrows." In 1650 so much dread and fear were felt of Sunday attacks from the red men that the Sabbath-Day guard was doubled in number. In 1692, the Connecticut Legislature ordered one fifth of the soldiers in each town to come armed to each meeting, and that nowhere should be present as a guard at time of public worship fewer than eight soldiers and a sergeant. In Hadley the guard was allowed annually from the public treasury a pound of lead and a pound of powder to each soldier.

No details that could add to safety on the Sabbath were forgotten or overlooked by the New Haven church; bullets were made common currency at the value of a farthing, in order that they might be plentiful and in every one's possession; the colonists were enjoined to determine in advance what to do with the women and children in case of attack, "that they do not hang about them and hinder them;" the men were ordered to bring at least six charges of powder and shot to meeting; the farmers were forbidden to "leave more arms at home than men to use them;" the half-pikes were to be headed and the whole ones mended, and the swords "and all piercing weapons furbished up and dressed;" wood was to be placed in the watch-house; it was ordered that the "door of the meeting-house next the soldiers' seat be kept clear from women and children sitting there, that if there be occasion for the soldiers to go suddenly forth, they may have free passage." The soldiers sat on either side of the main door, a sentinel was stationed in the meeting-house turret, and armed watchers paced the streets; three cannon were mounted by the side of this "church militant," which must strongly have resembled a garrison. ...

In spite of these events in the New Haven church (which were certainly exceptional), the seemingly incongruous union of church and army was suitable enough in a community that always began and ended the military exercises on "training day" with solemn prayer and psalm-singing; and that used the army and encouraged a true soldier-like spirit not chiefly as aids in war, but to help to conquer and destroy the adversaries of truth, and to "achieve greater matters by this little handful of men than the world is aware of."

The Salem sentinels wore doubtless some of the good English armor owned by the town,--corselets to cover the body; gorgets to guard the throat; tasses to protect the thighs; all varnished black, and costing each suit "twenty-four shillings a peece." The sentry also wore a bandileer, a large "neat's leather" belt thrown over the right shoulder, and hanging down under the left arm. This bandileer sustained twelve boxes of cartridges, and a well-filled bullet-bag. Each man bore either a "bastard musket with a snaphance," a "long fowling-piece with musket bore," a "full musket," a "barrell with a match-cock," or perhaps (for they were purchased by the town) a leather gun (though these leather guns may have been cannon). Other weapons there were to choose from, mysterious in name, "sakers, minions, ffaulcons, rabinets, murthers (or murderers, as they were sometimes appropriately called) chambers, harque-busses, carbins," ...

The armed Salem watcher, besides his firearms and ammunition, had attached to his wrist by a cord a gun-rest, or gun-fork, which he placed upon the ground when he wished to fire his musket, and upon which that constitutional kicker rested when touched off. He also carried a sword and sometimes a pike, and thus heavily burdened with multitudinous arms and cumbersome armor, could never have run after or from an Indian with much agility or celerity; though he could stand at the church-door with his leather gun,--an awe-inspiring figure,--and he could shoot with his "harquebuss," or "carbin," as we well know.

These armed "sentinells" are always regarded as a most picturesque accompaniment of Puritan religious worship, and the Salem and Plymouth armed men were imposing, though clumsy. But the New Haven soldiers, with their bulky garments wadded and stuffed out with thick layers of cotton wool, must have been more safety-assuring and comforting than they were romantic or heroic; but perhaps they too wore painted tin armor, "corselets and gorgets and tasses."

In Concord, New Hampshire, the men, who all came armed to meeting, stacked their muskets around a post in the middle of the church, while the honored pastor, who was a good shot and owned the best gun in the settlement, preached with his treasured weapon in the pulpit by his side, ready from his post of vantage to blaze away at any red man whom he saw sneaking without, or to lead, if necessary, his congregation to battle. The church in York, Maine, until the year 1746, felt it necessary to retain the custom of carrying arms to the meeting-house, so plentiful and so aggressive were Maine Indians.

Not only in the time of Indian wars were armed men seen in the meeting-house, but on June 17, 1775, the Provincial Congress recommended that the men "within twenty miles of the sea-coast carry their arms and ammunition with them to meeting on the Sabbath and other days when they meet for public worship." And on many a Sabbath and Lecture Day, during the years of war that followed, were proved the wisdom and foresight of that suggestion.

The men in those old days of the seventeenth century, when in constant dread of attacks by Indians, always rose when the services were ended and left the house before the women and children, thus making sure the safe exit of the latter. This custom prevailed from habit until a late date in many churches in New England, all the men, after the benediction and the exit of the parson, walking out in advance of the women. So also the custom of the men always sitting at the "head" or door of the pew arose from the early necessity of their always being ready to seize their arms and rush unobstructed to fight. In some New England village churches to this day, the man who would move down from his end of the pew and let a woman sit at the door, even if it were a more desirable seat from which to see the clergyman, would be thought a poor sort of a creature.


Alice Morse Earle, The Sabbath in Puritan New England (NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1891), 19-25.

Puritan John Eliot Promotes Biblical Civil Law & Builds Chrisitian Civilization Among the Indians (Theonomy Applied)

John Eliot (1604-1690) was a Puritan and a Congregational pastor. He authored the important theonomic work The Christian Commonwealth, and is well known for his endeavors to evangelize the Indians, for whom he sought to establish civil government based on God's word.

One author writes this of Eliot's labors to evangelize the Indians:

[H]e seized the banner of the cross, and, under the influence of faith and love, marched forth to take possession of a new territory, in the name of his Almighty Saviour. He turned his attention to the American Indians, in circumstances which entirely prevent the suspicion of his being actuated by improper motives; and, by a long life of active, enlightened, and persevering labour as an Evangelist, he made full proof of his ministry, and afforded an unequivocal testimony to the world, that he loved the cause of God as his own soul.[1] 

Eliot serves as a great example of applying a more thorough Great Commission: he understood that discipling nations involves teaching them to obey Christ in all areas of life, civil government included. And so in his ministry to the Indians, he didn't stop at their salvation: he sought to teach them about Christ's lordship over civil matters.


Rulers Must be Skilled in God's Word and Enforce Both Tables of the Law

In  The Christian Commonwealth: or,The Civil Policy Of The Rising Kingdom of Jesus Christ, John Eliot notes that rulers must enforce both tables of the law in matters "liable to Political observation"; and to faithfully execute their office, they must be skilled in the Scriptures:

The Office and Duty of all the Rulers, is to govern the people in the orderly and seasonable practice of all the Commandments of God, in actions liable to Political observation, whether of piety and love to God, or of justice, and love to man with peace. Hence they are keepers of both Tables, and are so to look that all the Commandments of God be observed, as to compel men to their undoubted duty, and punish them for their undoubted sins, errors and transgressions. A Case, a Duty, a Sin, is said then to be undoubted, when either it is expressly, or by general approved consequence, commanded or forbidden in the Scriptures; or when it hath passed the circuit of God's Polity, and received its final determination according to the Scriptures; unto which not to submit, is capital presumption. Hence again, Rulers are eminently concerned to maintain the purity of Religion, with all care and power; holiness, truth, and peace being much concerned herein. Hence again, all Rulers must be skillful in the Scriptures; they must read and meditate in the same all the days of their life, that thereby they may be enabled to do their Office faithfully, and religiously so long as they live.[2] 

The Sufficiency of Scripture for Civil Matters, and the Idolatry of Human Wisdom

The Puritan Cotton Mather writes this about John Eliot's view that Scripture is sufficient for civil government:

Such an opinion about the perfection of the scripture had he, that he thus expressed himself upon this occasion, God will bring nations into distress and perplexity, that so they may be forced unto the scriptures; all governments will be shaken, that men may be forced at length to pitch upon that firm foundation, the Word of God.[3] 

(The "occasion" that Mather speaks of is when Eliot helped Indians to establish a civil covenant, which we discuss later.)

For Eliot, Scripture is sufficient for civil government — even to the punishment of crimes:

It is also necessary to have persons, and all other Instruments, for the inflicting of all kinds of Punishments, which the Law of God appointeth.[4] 

Thus, to deny Sola Scriptura in matters of the state is to deny the sufficiency and the perfection of the Scriptures:

There is undoubtedly a form of Civil Government instituted by God himself in the holy Scriptures; whereby any Nation may enjoy all the ends and effects of Government in the best manner, were they but persuaded to make trial of it. We should derogate from the sufficiency and perfection of the Scriptures, if we should deny it. The Scripture is able thoroughly to furnish the man of God (whether Magistrate in the Commonwealth, or Elder in the Church, or any other) unto every good work.[5] 

Civil governments, Eliot maintained, should be based on the Lord's "Scripture-Government"—not "that great Idol of Humane Wisdom."[6] And so elsewhere, while discussing his views on prophecy, he states:

[T]his is certain, that all forms and Laws of man's invention will shake, be unsettled; and many will doubt of subjecting to any way man can devise; and they will never rest till they come up to the Scriptures, and when they produce Scripture grounds for all they do, it will answer and satisfy all godly consciences, and awe the rest, and stop their mouths unless they will cavil against divine wisdom. It is the very reason why the Lord in this hour of temptation will bring Nations into distress and perplexity, that so they may be forced to the Scriptures; the light whereof hath sole authority to extricate them out of their deep perplexities; and therefore all Governments are and will be shaken, that men may be forced to pitch upon the firm and unshaken foundation, the Word of God ... [7] 

Eliot yearned for his native England to embrace the regulative principle of the state— where God's Word would be its "Magna Carta":

Oh my heart yearneth over distressed perplexed England, and my continual prayer unto the Lord for them is, that he would be pleased to open their hearts and eyes, and let them see their opportunity to let in Christ, and to advance his Kingdom over them; yea, my hope is, that he will not leave tampering with them until he hath brought it to pass; Oh the blessed day in England when the Word of God shall be their Magna Charta and chief Law Book; and when all Lawyers must be Divines to study the Scriptures; and should the Gentile Nations take up Moses' policy so far as it is moral and conscionable, make the Scriptures the foundation of all their Laws, who knoweth what a door would be opened to the Jews to come in to Christ ... [8]

Eliot on Bringing Biblical Civil Government to the Indians

Eliot's "unique and fascinating work" The Christian Commonwealth: or,The Civil Policy Of The Rising Kingdom of Jesus Christ "has been called the first book of political theory written by an American."[9] Regarding the book, as "the Puritan missionary to the New England Indians, [Eliot] developed this plan of political organization for the Christianized tribes that he converted. In the late 1640s, he adapted it for English use ..."[10]

Eliot writes in the book,

I think it needful to insert this word of Apology for myself; That it pleased the Lord of his free mercy to me (in myself being no way fitted for such a work) to put me on, to instruct our poor, blind, and dark Indians, in the good knowledge of the Lord: who when (through grace) they tasted of the knowledge of God, of themselves, of Christ and redemption by him; they desired to leave their wild and scattered manner of life, and come under Civil Government and Order; which did put me upon search, after the mind of the Lord in that respect. And this VOW I did solemnly make unto the Lord concerning them; that they being a people without any form of Government, and now to choose; I would endeavor with all my might, to bring them under the Government of the Lord only: Namely, that I would instruct them to embrace such Government, both Civil and Ecclesiastical, as the Lord hath commanded in the holy Scriptures ; and to deduce all their Laws from the holy Scriptures, that so they may be the Lords people, ruled by him alone in all things.[11] 

In another work, he discusses taking counsel with John Cotton and others regarding the laws and kind of civil government the Indians should have. Like in the Christian Commonwealth, he states that they are to be governed by God's word in all things:

Now dear Sir, it may be you will desire to know what kind of Civil Government they shall be instructed in; I acknowledge it to be a very weighty consideration; and I have advised with Mr. Cotton and others about it, and this I propound as my general rule through the help of the Lord; they shall be wholly governed by the Scriptures in all things both in Church and State; they shall have no other Law-giver; the Lord shall be their Law-giver, the Lord shall be their Judge, the Lord shall be their King, and he will save them; and when it is so the Lord reigneth, and unto that frame the Lord will bring all the world ere he hath done, but it will be more difficult in other Nations who have been adulterate with their Antichristian or human wisdom; they will be loath to lay down their imperfect own Star-light of excellent Laws, in their conceits, for the perfect Sun-light of the Scripture, which through blindness they cannot see.[12] 

Similarly, he writes:

Touching the way of their Government, I also intimated the purpose of my heart, that I intend to direct them according as the Lord shall please to help and assist to set up the Kingdom of Jesus Christ fully, so that Christ shall reign both in Church and Commonwealth, both in Civil and Spiritual matters; we will (through his grace) fly to the Scriptures, for every Law, Rule, Direction, Form, or what ever we do.[13]

Eliot Works to Build Biblical Civil Government Among the Indians

On Eliot's labors to set up Christian civil governments among the Indians, Joel R. Beeke writes:

Eliot began to set up towns of praying Indians. Natick was the first (1651). By 1674, there were fourteen praying towns, with an estimated population of 3,600, approximately 1,100 of whom were converted. In each town, natives made a solemn covenant to give themselves and their children to be God's people in a new civil government. These towns were almost entirely self-governing, though major issues could be referred to the Massachusetts General Court. For the most part, the natives were expected to adopt the Puritan lifestyle along with the Christian faith.[14]  

According to Michael P. Clark, "the civil covenant formed by Praying Indians at Natick ... created the first community of Indian proselytes in New England."[15] Here, 

Eliot designed a system of government based on Exodus 18:17-26, where Moses's father-in-law Jethro suggests to Moses that he appoint a hierarchical system of leaders for his people based on groups of ten, fifty, one hundred, and so on up to Moses at the top as the general ruler. With fewer than 150 people at first, Natick offered only a small-scale opportunity to test this theory, but the model was imposed, with the sachem Cutshamekin as the ruler of hundreds, and two rulers of fifties: the aging Totherswamp, and Waban, who also helped adjudicate minor legal matters among the Indians.[16] 

Under John Eliot's direction, the Natick Indians entered into the following covenant to serve God in all areas of life:

We are the sons of Adam; we and our forefathers have a long time been lost in our sins; but now the mercy of the Lord beginneth to find us out again; therefore the grace of Christ helping us, we do give our selves, and our children unto God, to be his people. He shall rule us in all our affairs; the Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our Law-giver, the Lord is our King; He will save us; and the wisdom which God has taught us in his book shall guide us. Oh Jehovah, teach us wisdom; send thy spirit into our hearts; take us to be thy people, and let us take thee to be our God.[17]

On the Indians' establishment of society on God's word, the Puritan Cotton Mather writes:

The little towns of these Indians being pitched upon this foundation, they utterly abandoned that poligamy which had heretofore been common among them; they made severe laws against fornication, drunkenness, and sabbath-breaking, and other immoralities; and they next began to lament after the establishment of a church-order among them, and after the several ordinances and privileges of a church-communion.[18]

One author discusses the establishment of laws following the work of Eliot in Natick (although I disagree with the author's use of the words "English law" and "English Christianity"):

Provincial magistrates also passed laws and made provision for the acculturation and conversion of "those poore, lost, naked sonnes of Adam." The subjection of the Indians to English law and their conversion to English Christianity were tasks central to the metropolitan New World vision. The establishment of "Praying Towns" in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, beginning in 1651 with the founding of Natick under the supervision of John Eliot, combined both objectives in one program. Bay Colony magistrates expected the Algonquian bands to conform to Puritan proscriptions against blasphemy and idolatry, serious crimes whether committed by Indian or Englishman. Those practicing native religion within the colony or performing "outward worship of their false gods, or to ye devill," would be fined. These laws, "necessary & holesome" and intended "to reduce ym to civility of life," would be made known to the Indians through interpreters and ministers "chosen by ye elders of the churches every yeare, at ye Cort of Election."[19]

Notes
____________________________

[1] John Wilson, The Life of John Eliot, the Apostle of the Indians (Edinburgh: William Oliphant, 1828), ix, x.

[2] John Eliot, The Christian Commonwealth: or,The Civil Policy Of The Rising Kingdom of Jesus Christ, ed. Paul Royster (University of Nebraska, Lincoln, 1659), 19. In all quotes from this work, we have modernized the spelling. 

[3] Cotton Mather, Magnalia Christi Americana: Or, The Ecclesiastical History of New-England, from Its First Planting in the Year 1620, Unto the Year of Our Lord, 1698, Volume 1 (Hartford, CT: Silas Andrus, 1820), 512. 

[4] Eliot, The Christian Commonwealth, 13. 

[5] Ibid., vii. 

[6] Ibid., xvi, xvii. 

[7] John Eliot, "of the Indians in New-England," in Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society (Cambridge: Charles Folsom, 1834), 127. In all quotes from this work, we have modernized the spelling.
[8] Ibid., 131. 
[9] Eliot, The Christian Commonwealth, intro page.

[10] Ibid. 

[11] Ibid., viii, ix. 

[12] Eliot, "of the Indians in New-England," in Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, 127.

[13] Ibid., 131.

[14] Joel R. Beeke, "Reformed Orthodoxy in North America," in Herman Selderhuis, ed., A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy (Brill's Companions to the Christian Tradition)(The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2013), 338. According to Berlant, "Eliot himself purchased the land at Natick; he also purchased the materials the Indians would need to become self-governing and self-sufficient in these regenerate towns." Lauren Berlant, "Fantasies of Utopia in The Blithedale Romance," in Gordon Hutner, ed., The American Literary History Reader (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1995), 19.

[15] Michael P. Clark, ed., The Eliot Tracts: With Letters from John Eliot to Thomas Thorowgood and Richard Baxter (Contributions in American History, Book 199) (Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2003), 15.

[16] Ibid., 15, 16.

[17] Mather, Magnalia Christi Americana, 512.
[18] Ibid.

[19] Michael Leroy Oberg, Dominion and Civility: English Imperialism and Native America, 1585-1685 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2003), 124.