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. 

Thomas Shepard on Sola Scriptura & Civil Government, Sabbath Breaking, & More

Thomas Shepard (1605-1649) was an important Puritan writer and pastor who participated in the founding of Harvard University and worked to evangelize the Indians. He also influenced the procuring of The Cambridge Platform, an important constitution for Congregational churches on church government and discipline. 

Below are some quotes regarding his views on:

• The binding authority of the Judicial Laws of Moses
• The Sufficiency of Scripture for civil government
• The need for rulers to punish violations of the First Table of the Law (including violations of the Sabbath)
• Toleration and abuse of power
• The law of nature, the Judicial Law, and commonwealths
• Why the death penalty for the Sabbath, and whether it binds nations today

As a Fence to the Moral Law, the Judicial Laws of Moses Bind all Nations

Thomas Shepard argues that those judicial laws of Moses that are a fence to the moral law bind all nations, since such a fence is as necessary today as it was for Israel:

The judicial laws, some of them being hedges and fences to safeguard both moral and ceremonial precepts, their binding power was therefore mixed and various, for those which did safeguard any moral law, (which is perpetual) whether by just punishments or otherwise, do still morally bind all nations; for, as Piscator argues, a moral law is as good and as precious now in these times as then, and there is as much need of the preservation of these fences to preserve these laws in these times, and at all times, as well as then, there being as much danger of the treading down of those laws by the wild beasts of the world and brutish men (sometimes even in churches) now as then; and hence God would have all nations preserve their fences forever, as he would have that law preserved forever which these safeguard; but, on the other side, these judicials which did safeguard ceremonial laws which we know were not perpetual, but proper to that nation, hence those judicials which compass these about are not perpetual nor universal; the ceremonials being plucked up by their roots, to what purpose then should their fences and hedges stand? As, on the contrary, the morals abiding, why should not their judicials and fences remain?

The learned generally doubt not to affirm that Moses’ judicials bind all nations, so far forth as they contain any moral equity in them, which moral equity doth appear not only in respect of the end of the law, when it is ordered for common and universal good, but chiefly in respect of the law which they safeguard and fence, which if it be moral, it is most just and equal, that either the same or like judicial fence (according to some fit proportion) should preserve it still, because it is but just and equal that a moral and universal law should be universally preserved; from whence, by the way, the weakness of their reasonings may be observed, who, that they may take away the power of the civil magistrate in matters of the first table, (which once he had in the Jewish commonwealth,) affirm that such civil power then did arise from the judicial, and not from any moral law; whenas it is manifest that this his power in preserving God’s worship pure from idolatrous and profane mixtures, according to the judicial laws, was no more but a fence and safeguard set about moral commandments; which fences and preservatives are therefore (for substance) to continue in as much power and authority now as they did in those days, as long as such laws continue in their morality, which these preserve; the duties of the first table being also as much moral as those of the second, to the preserving of which latter from hurt and spoil in respect of their morality, no wise man questions the extent of his power.[1]

The Sufficiency of Scripture for Civil Government

Shepard holds that Scripture provides all the guidance necessary for rulers to create good laws:

Because the law is sufficient to guide the whole man, in its whole course, in all the actions or occasions it meddles with or takes in hand, even in civil as well as in religious matters. Prov. ii. 9, "Wisdom teacheth every good path" [paraphrase]. Ps. cxix. 11, "I have hid thy word, that I might not sin" [paraphrase]. Whatever one doth without a rule from the word, is not of faith. Hence the word descends to the most petty occasions of our lives; it teacheth men how to look, (Ps. cxxxi. 1,) how to speak, (Matt. xii. 36;) it descends to the plaiting of the hair, (1 Pet. iii. 5,) moving of the feet, (Is. iii. 16;) and what is of Christian liberty hath its freedom from the word: a man must give an account at the last day of every stirring of heart, thoughts, motives, and secret words; and if so, then it must be according to the rule of the word; and hence the word only hath absolute power to bind masters, servants, and princes how they govern, and people how they subject; and this the Lord hath done to make men take Counsel from him, and walk in fear before him, and approve themselves to him, especially townsmen in their places not to consult without God.

2. All good laws and orders enacted in any place by men are either expressly mentioned in the word, or are to be collected and deducted from the word, as being able to give sufficient direction herein. For all the authority of the highest power on earth, in contriving of laws, is in this alone, viz., to make prudent collection and special application of the general rules, recorded in Scripture, to such special and peculiar circumstances which may promote the public weal and good of persons, places, proceedings. Prov. viii. 85 [15], "By me princes decree justice" [paraphrase]. Josh. i. 7, 8, "Do what Moses commanded; turn not on either hand" [paraphrase]. Object. But I can not see my way from hence always. Meditate therefore on it much, and then thy way shall prosper, etc. Many things Joshua did not particularly set down by Moses, but may be collected from it. Deut. i. 17—20, "The king is to have it, that he may prolong his days in the midst of Israel," in his kingdom [not sure of the connection between the quote and the verse cited]. What made Rehoboam to turn from these ways? He thought he could not stablish his kingdom without it; that was, therefore, the ruin of him and his kingdom.[2] 

Shephard likewise affirms the sufficiency of Scripture in civil government while discussing the magistrate's need to see the Sabbath observed:

And if superiors in families are to see their gates preserved unspotted from such provoking evils, can any think but that the same bond lies upon superiors in commonwealths, who are the fathers of those great families, whose subjects also are within their gates, and the power of their jurisdictions? The civil magistrate, though he hath no power to impose new laws upon the consciences of his subjects, yet he is bound to see that the laws of God be kept by all his subjects; provided always, that herein he walk according to the law and rule of God, viz., that, 1, ignorant consciences in clear and momentous matters be first instructed; 2, doubting consciences have sufficient means of being resolved; 3, bold and audacious consciences be first forewarned. Hence it is, that though he hath no power to make holy days, and to impose the observation of them upon the consciences of his subjects, (because these are his own laws,) yet he may and should see that the Sabbath day, (the Lord’s holy day,) that this be observed, because he doth but see to the execution of God’s commandment herein.[3]

The Need for Rulers to Punish Violations of the First Table of the Law (including violations of the Sabbath)

For Shepard, denying magistrates the duty to punish offenses against the first table of the law is a rejection of Christ's kingship. And so he says the following, noting particular offenders against the judicial law such as Sabbath-breakers, false prophets, and heretics (or at least promoters of heresy):

I conceive it is casting off Christ’s power to take away power from magistrates to punish sins against the first table, of which errors and heresies in religion are part. It is as clear as the sun, that the kings of Judah that were godly did it, and were commended for it; and it is as clear they were commended for it, not as types of Christ, but because they did therein that which was right in God’s eyes, and according to the commandment of the Lord, which judicial commandments, concerning the punishing of Sabbath breakers, false prophets, heretics, etc., God's fence to preserve moral laws, they are of moral equity, and so to be observed to this day of Christian magistrates, etc.[4] 

While arguing for rulers to prohibit profaning of the Sabbath, Shepard says the following in defense of the civil enforcement of the first table of the law:

By what rule did Nehemiah not only forbid the breach of the Sabbath, but did also threaten bodily punishment upon the men of Tyre? (although they were heathens, yet were they at this time within the gates and compass of his jurisdiction, Neh. xiii. 21.) Certainly he thought himself bound in conscience to see that the Sabbath should not be profaned by any that were within his gates, according to this fourth commandment. If kings, and princes, and civil magistrates have nothing to do in matters of the first table, (and consequently must give any man liberty to profane the Sabbath that pretends conscience,) why then doth Jeremy call upon princes to see that it be not profaned, with promise of having their crowns and kingdoms preserved from wrath if thus they do, and with threatening the burning up and consuming of city and kingdom if this they do not? (Jer. xvii. 19, 25, 27.) If civil magistrates have nothing to do herein, they then have nothing to do to preserve their crowns, kingdoms, scepters, subjects, from fire and blood, and utter ruin. Nehemiah was no type of Christ, nor were the kings of Israel bound to see the Sabbath kept as types of Christ, but as nursing fathers of the commonwealth, and because their own subjects were within their gates, and under their power; and therefore, according to this moral rule of the commandment, they were bound not only to keep it themselves, but to see that all others did so also.[5] 

On Toleration and Abuse of Power

The civil magistrate's abuse of power is often raised in defense of too much toleration. Shepard addresses this objection in the following way:

It is true civil magistrates may abuse their power, judge amiss, and think that to be the command of God which is not; but we must not therefore take away their power from them, because they may pervert it and abuse it; we must not deny that power they have for God, because they may pervert it and turn the edge of it against God; for if upon this ground the magistrate hath no power over his subjects in matters of the first table, he may have also all his feathers pulled from him, and all his power taken from him in matters of the second table; for we know that he may work strange changes there, and pervert justice and judgment exceedingly: we must not deny their power, because they may turn it awry, and hurt God’s church and people by it, but (as the apostle exhorts, 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2) to pray for them the more, that under them we may live a peaceable life in all godliness and honesty: it is a thousand times better to suffer persecution for righteousness’ sake and for a good conscience, than to desire and plead for toleration of all consciences, that so (by this cowardly device and lukewarm principle) our own may be untouched: it was never heard of, until now of late, that any of God’s prophets, apostles, martyrs, faithful witnessess, etc., that they ever pleaded for liberty in error, but only for the truth, which they preached and prayed for, and suffered for unto the death; and their sufferings for the truth with zeal, patience, faith, constancy, have done more good than the way of universal toleration is like to do, which is purposely invented to avoid trouble. Truth hath ever spread by opposition and persecution; but error, being a child of Satan, hath fled, by a zealous resisting it.[6]

While Shepherd held that rulers should tolerate the humble conscience, for him there is a world of difference between this and tolerating in any particular civil matter those who pretend conscience. 

Sick and weak men are to be tendered much, but lunatic and frantic men are in best case when they are well fettered and bound; a weak conscience is to be tendered, a humble conscience tolerated; errors of weakness, not wickedness, are with all gentleness to be handled; the liberty given in the reign of Episcopacy for sports, and pastimes, and may games, upon the Lord’s day, was once loathsome to all honest minds; but now to allow a greater liberty to buy, sell, plow, cart, thresh, sport upon the Sabbath day, to all those who pretend conscience, or rather that they have no conscience of one day more than another, is to build up Jericho and Babel again, and to lay foundations of wrath to the land; for God will certainly revenge the pollutions of his Sabbaths: if God be troubled in his rest, no wonder if he disturbs our peace: some of the ancients think that the Lord brought the flood of waters upon the Sabbath day, as they gather from Gen. vii. 10, because they were grown to be great profaners of the Sabbath; and we know that Prague was taken upon this day. The day of their sin began all their sorrows, which are continued to this day, to the amazement of the world. When the time comes that the Lord’s precious Sabbaths are the days of God’s church’s rest, then shall come in the church’s peace. (Ps. cii. 13, 14.) The free grace of Christ must first begin herein with us, that we may find at last that rest which this evil world is not yet like to see, unless it speedily love his law more, and his Sabbaths better.[7]

On the Law of Nature, the Judicial Law, and Commonwealths

Shepherd held that the law of nature could be better known by knowledge of God's law, or less known due to the corruption of sin. Moreover, many judicial laws are still natural and moral, and are binding on nations:

If more narrow inquiry be made, what the law of nature is, these distinctions must be observed:—

1. The law of nature is either of pure or corrupt nature.

The law of pure nature was the law of God writ on Adam’s heart in innocency, which was nothing else but that holy bent and inclination of the heart within to act according to the holy law of God revealed, or covenant made with him without; and thus Aquinas places the law of nature in this inclination. 

The law of corrupt nature is that dim light left in the mind, and moral inclination left in the will, in respect of some things contained in the law of God, which the apostle calls conscience, (Rom. ii. 15;) which natural conscience is nothing but the remnants and general principles of the law of pure nature, left in all men since the fall, which may be increased by more knowledge of the law of God, or more diminished and defaced by the wickedness of man. (Tit. i. 15.)

2. The law of corrupt nature is taken either more largely or strictly. 

As it is taken more largely, so it comprehends all that which is agreeable and suitable to natural reason, and that from a natural innate equity in the thing, when it is made known, either by divine instruction or human wisdom, although it be not immediately known by the light of nature; and thus many judicial laws are natural and moral, (though positive,) and of binding nature, unto this day. 

As it is taken strictly, so it comprehends no more but what nature immediately knows, or may know, without external instruction, as parents to be honored, man's life to be preserved.[8]

According to Shepherd, the moral law as seen in the law of nature is almost blotted out for the unsaved; however, while there is little known regarding matters of the First Table, there is a general printing of the notions of the Second Table of the law in their hearts which assists in the preservation of commonwealths:

If we speak of the law of nature, strictly taken, for that which is immediately and readily known by the common light of nature in all men, then it may be safely affirmed, that although the Sabbath should not be in this sense natural, yet it will not follow that it is not therefore moral; for the moral law, once writ on man’s heart in pure nature, is almost blotted out; only some rudera and old rubbish is left of it in a perverse mind and a corrupt heart. (Eph. iv. 18.) We see the wisest of the heathens making those things to be moral virtues (Junius instanceth in the law of private revenge, and we know they magnified will worship) which the Scripture condemns as moral vices and sins: God would have commonwealths preserved, in all places of the world, from the inundation and deluge of man’s wickedness, and therefore he hath generally printed the notions of the second table upon men’s hearts, to set bounds (as by sea banks) unto the overflowings thereof, and hence it is that they are generally known: but he would not have churches every where, and therefore there is but little known concerning matters of the first table, and consequently about this law of the Sabbath, which notwithstanding may be moral, although it be not so immediately made known.[9]

Why the Death Penalty for the Sabbath, and Whether it Binds Nations Today

Shepherd holds that the man who was executed for breaking the Sabbath in Scripture was not simply executed for gathering sticks, but for doing so presumptuously. He then ponders as to whether such a penalty applies today:

The man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath (Num. xv. 30) was put to death. What! for gathering of sticks only? Why then did not the just God put them to death who were the first offenders, (and therefore most fit to be made examples,) who went out to gather manna upon this day? (Ex. xvi.) This gathering of sticks, therefore, though little in itself, yet seems to be aggravated by presumption; and that the man did presumptuously break the Sabbath, and therefore it is generally observed, that this very example follows the law of punishing a presumptuous transgressor with death in this very chapter: and though it be said that they found a man gathering sticks, as if it were done secretly, and not presumptuously, yet we know that presumptuous sins may be committed secretly as well as openly, though they are not in so high a degree presumptuous as when they are done more openly: the fear of the law against Sabbath breakers might restrain the man from doing that openly which before God was done proudly and presumptuously; and though Moses doubted what to do with the man, who had that capital law given him before against Sabbath breakers, yet they might be ignorant for a time of the full and true meaning of it, which the Lord here seems to expound, viz., that a Sabbath breaker sinning presumptuously is to be put to death; and although it be doubted whether such a law is not too rigorous in these times, yet we do see that where the magistrate neglects to restrain from this sin, the Lord takes the magistrate’s work into his own hand, and many times cuts them off suddenly who profane his Sabbath presumptuously; and it is worth inquiring into, whether presumptuous Sabbath breakers are not still to be put to death; which I doubt not but that the Lord will either one day clear up, or else discover some specialty in the application of this judicial law, to that polity of the Jews, as most fit for them, and not so universally fit for all others in Christian commonwealths; but this latter I yet see no proof for; nor do I expect the clearing up of the other while the temper of the times is loose and lukewarm.[10]

Notes
__________________________________

[1] Thomas Shepard, The Works of Thomas Shepard, First Pastor of the First Church, Cambridge, Mass. with a Memoir of His Life and Character: Volume III, ed. John Adams Albro  (Boston, MA: Doctrinal Tract and Book Society, 1853), 53, 54.

[2] Ibid., 346, 347.
[3] Ibid., 263.
[4] Ibid., 342.
[5] Ibid., 263, 264.
[6] Ibid., 264.
[7] Ibid., 264, 265.
[8] Ibid., 177.
[9] Ibid., 179.
[10] Ibid., 256.

Increase Mather on Voting, Toleration, Biblical Civil Law, & More

Increase Mather (1639-1723) was a defender of Puritan Orthodoxy who served as President of Harvard University. A Congregational minister in colonial Massachusetts, he was the father of Cotton Mather and an important figure in the Salem Witch Trials.

Below are some quotes regarding his views on:

• punishing crime and applying due process according to Scripture
• basing laws on God's word
• toleration
• the role rulers play in societal reformation
• choosing rulers

Punishing Crime and Applying Due Process According to Scripture

While touching on the state's duties regarding those suspected of witchcraft, Increase Mather assumes the abiding validity of Old Testament civil law regarding crime and due process. For instance, witches should be a punished by the magistrate, who should seek to rid the land of such evildoers: 

But we have in the Scripture the Example of a better Man than Saul to encourage us to make enquiry after Wizzards and Witches in order to their Conviction and Execution. This did the rarest King that ever lived caused to be done, viz. Josiah, 2. Kings, 23. 24. The Workers with familiar Spirits and the Wizzards, that were spied in the Land of Judah, did Josiah put away, that he might perform the Words of the Law. It seems there were some that sought to hide those Workers of Iniquity, but that incomparable King spied them out, and rid the Land and the World of them.[1]

Magistrates, however, cannot arbitrarily punish those accused of witchcraft. They are constrained by biblical rules of due process (e.g., two or more witnesses), and cannot invent their own means for determining whether one is a witch. Thus he states the following (where he also advocates Scripture's criminalization of murder and adultery): 

Let them say this is an infallible Proof, produce any Word out of the Law of God which does in the least countenance that Assertion: The Word of God instructs Jurors and Judges to proceed upon clear humane Testimony, Deut. 35. 30. But the Word no where giveth us the least Intimation, that every one is a Witch, at whose look the bewitched Person shall fall into Fits; nor yet that any other means should be used for the discovery of Witches, than what may be used for the finding out of Murderers, Adulterers, and other Criminals. ...

The Evidence in this Crime ought to be as clear as in any other Crimes of a Capital nature. The Word of God does no where intimate, that a less clear Evidence, or that fewer or other Witnesses may be taken as sufficient to convict a Man of Sorcery, which would not be enough to convict him were he charged with another evil worthy of Death, Numb. 35. 30. If we may not take the Oath of a distracted Person, or of a possessed Person in a Case of Murder, Theft, Felony of any sort, then neither may we do it in the Case of Witchcraft.[2]

For Mather, then, 

It is better that a Guilty Person should be Absolved, than that he should without sufficient ground of Conviction be condemned. I had rather judge a Witch to be an honest woman, than judge an honest woman as a Witch. The Word of God directs men not to proceed to the execution of the most capital offenders, until such time as upon searching diligently, the matter is found to be a Truth, and the thing certain, Deut. 13. 14,15.[3]  

And as he also states:

I answer the Question affirmatively; There are Proofs for the Conviction of Witches which Jurors may with a safe Conscience proceed upon, so as to bring them in guilty. The Scripture which saith, Thou shalt not suffer a Witch to live, clearly implies, that some in the World may be known and proved to be Witches: For until they be so, they may and must be suffered to live.[4]  

Basing Laws on God's Word

In his An Earnest Exhortation To the Inhabitants of New England, Mather affirms that civil government should base its laws on Scripture (at least as it applies to prohibitions and punishments); unbiblical laws should be changed to conform to God's word:

In order to Reformation: Let there be a due execution of wholesome Laws which are founded upon the Word of God. If there be any Laws amongst us which cannot be warrented from the Word, change them and establish other in their room (I speak of Laws which respect the punishment of transgressors) but if the Scripture will justifie this or that testimony against Transgressors; either of first or second Table, let that and only that be done which shall please God: I have read, that it is a Rule in Politicks, that a bad Executioner of Laws is worse then a violator of them. Our defect is not so much in respect of the want of good Laws, as in the non-execution of those Laws that are good. It were better never to make Laws for the suppressing of Evils that are provoking in the sight of God, then not to see them faithfully executed when they are made.[5]

Speaking for his colony -- if not for all of the New England colonies -- Mather affirms that the Commonwealth should be regulated by God's Word:

We are the Children of the good old Non-Conformists: and therefore are we under the deepest engagement, not only to reject Inventions Humane in the things of God but to come up to the practice of Institutions Divine. As to our Ecclesiastical constitution, the Congregational way ... is that which we profess. And as to our Civil Polity, our Profession hath been, that they that are Rulers should be men that fear God, and that they that choose them should be such also, and that Laws in the Common-wealth should be regulated by the Word of God, that so the Lord Jesus may reign there.[6]

Toleration

While Mather was a most tolerant man, he understood that liberty of conscience should never be used to excuse the profanest errors, such as Sabbath breaking and idolatry. Such toleration provokes God's wrath:

There is indeed one particular insisted on, which is now become a matter of Scruple and distaste to some amongst us, viz. that which concerns the Magistrates power in matters of Religion. But as it was by me either intended or expressed, I know not to this hour why any one should be offended at it. I may better speak in this cause than some others, as having my self had experience what it is to have Conscience imposed on, and therefore would be loth that any truly conscientious should be burdened; and it is sufficiently known that I have a greater latitude and Indulgence in the point of Toleration, than many better than my self have. Nevertheless I judge it most unreasonable that pretended Liberty of Conscience should be an Asylum for the profanest errors to take Sanctuary in: As though men must therefore have Liberty to profane Sabbaths or Sacraments, or set up an Altar against the Lord's Altar and their Threshold by his Threshold, & their Posts by his Posts, when and where they please: It cannot be but the Lord will be provoked at such things, especially in New-England where men are not under such temptations to forsake their Assembling themselves together, as in some other places: And where Zeal on the other hand hath been notorious, so that such Lukewarmness will in a People circumstanced as we are, be an evidence of Apostacy.[7] 

As for the common objection that rulers in the New Covenant era should not punish offenses against the First Table of the law, Mather writes:

3. I beseech you in the Name of the Lord, that you would in special manner beware of that which was the sin of Solomon: and what was that! Truly sinful Toleration was Solomon's great Iniquity, whereby he did forsake the Lord. It is said of him, he built High places for Asht•••h, 2. King, 23.13. because he did tolerate, and give publick allowance, unto those Idolatries: and that sin of his was the reason why the Lord stirred up Adversaries against him. Do we not find that all the godly reforming Magistrates, spoken of in Scripture, thought it their Concern to pull down false worship, as well as to set up the true Worship of God. It is a most vain objection which some have made, That we do not read in the New Testament, that the Magistrate did ever punish any, on account of transgression against the first Table: No more (saith Calvin) do we read in the New Testament that the Ma∣gistrate did ever punish men for murder, or other Crimes, does it therefore follow that he ought not so to doe? But therein it is said that they ought to punish all evil doers, Rom. 13.4. 1. Tim. 1.9. And that Transgressions against the first Table are evil deeds, Gal. 5.19.20. Phil. 3.2. 2. Joh. 10.11.[8]

Mather notes that toleration of all religions is a tactic used to persecute Christians. While it is better for rulers to be too lenient than to be too harsh in matters of toleration, tolerating attacks on the foundations of Christianity can destroy the Christian social order. Mather warns rulers of the consequences of neglecting their duties:

Moreover, sinful Toleration is an evil of exceeding dangerous consequence: Men of Corrupt minds though they may plead for Toleration, and Cry up Liberty of Conscience &c. yet if once they should become numerous and get power into their hands, none would persecute more than they: So the Donatists of old, and the German Anabaptists in the last Age. And the Arminian Remonstrants in the Netherlands made Hideous Clamours for Liberty of Conscience, and that the States of Holland were more cruel than the bloody Spanish Inquisitors, yet when they became potent, they did persecute the Orthodox Professors of the Truth. And indeed the Toleration of all Religions and Persuasions, is the way to have no true Religion at all left. That was Julian the Apostate's device, in order to an extirpation of Christianity. And it is a Solemn Word which Mr. Cotton (the first and famous Teacher in this Congregation) speaketh I wish (saies he) that Antichrist do not creep in at the back door of Tolleration. I do believe that Antichrist hath not at this day a more probable way to advance his Kingdom of Darkness, than by a Tolleration of all Religions and Perswasions, Hence some of the chief of the Popish Doctors have writen against the Magistrates power in matter of Religion. But remember I pray you how God hath punished this sin which I am testifying against. Of old (as some have truly observed) when once the Roman Emperours did indulge and tolerate Arians, God was provoked to let the Barbarous Goths loose to break in upon the Empire and destroy it, so as that the Church fled into the Wilderness, and had like to have been swept away with that flood. And what misery this sin hath more than once brought upon our Land and Nation, I need not tell you. It is a very memorable Passage which I find related in the Life of that great learned VSHER, when Popish Idolaters were by the Civil State allowed; Well, (said that Worthy of his time) you shall find that God will punish you forty years hence, by those very men, whom you have sinfully indulged: And so it came to pass; for just forty years after that, was the Irish Rebellion. This very sin which God calls me to bear witness against this day hath been subversive to the interest of Religion in some Christian Nations. The Toleration of Socinianism has proved the ruin of the Churches in Poland & Transylvania. Yet it is far from my design in speaking this to stir up Magistrates to that which the Scripture calls Persecution: it were better to err by too much indulgence towards those that have the root of the matter in them, than by too much Severity. Nay, as to those that are indeed Heretical, I can for my own part say with Luther, ad judicium sanguinis tardus sum, I have no affection to sanguinary punishments in such Cases. And certainly there are other ways to suppress Hereticks besides Heretic•de, witness what was done by great Constantine for the suppression of Arianism. Nevertheless, approved Writers who, are large enough in the point of Toleration, declare, that they, the principles of whose Religion are disturbant to the Civil State and Constitution of any place, may not be indulged, (and that therefore Popish Priests and Jesuits are not to be permitted) Sure then they whose Religion, and whose Profession doth warm in its bowels a fatal Engine, against the Kingdom and Churches of the Lord Jesus, ought not to be tolerated. Nor is it tolerable for any sort of men amongst us, to set up a mount Gerizzim that if these or those are justly cast out of the Churches of Christ, they shall be suffered to set up an Altar against the Lord's Altar, and (it may be) to take those hands that are in the Name of the Lord Jesus delivered up to Satan, I say, to take those hands to administer the dreadful misteries of the Kingdom, it is an abomination enough to make desolate. Certainty (much honoured in the Lord) if your blessed Fathers and Predecessors were alive and in place, it would not be so; If Winthrop, Dudley, Endicot were upon the Bench such profaneness as this would soon be suppressed. And if it be so that the spirit of Rulers in New-England is changed, if you do become cold and indifferent in the things of God, departing from your former love, and zeal for the Name, Truth, and blessed Ordinances, of the Lord Jesus, I will be bold to speak to you, as once Mr. Brightman said to a greater man than any of you all, if it be so, you may believe it, God will change either you, or your Government ere long. I speak it to you with great solemnity of Spirit, and in the Name of Him that is Higher than the highest.[9] 

The Importance of Rulers in Defending Christianity

For Mather, rulers play an important role in defending Christianity -- not only be policy, but by example:

If Magistrates, Ministers and people all do what Duty requireth, the feared Apostasy, together with the unavoidable Calamity coming therewith, may be prevented, however in great Measure and for a long time.

1. Let me apply my speech unto Zerubbabels, h▪ e. Rulers in the Common-Wealth: Honoured and much Esteemed, The Wellfare or Ill-fare of the present, yea, and following Generation doth much depend upon you. Magistrates are in the Scripture compared to to Corner stones, because where there is a Common-Wealth erected, the Safety of the whole Building under God depends much upon them: Hence are they also termed Foundations, Psal. 11.3. If the Foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous doe? If David had perished, Foundations had been destroyed, and the good people of the Land would have dearly felt the loss of him. And when in Saul's time there were corrupt Judges and Magistrates, it is therefore said that the Foundations of the Earth were out of Course, Psal. 82.5. And the prophet Micah speaking to the Rulers in the Common-Wealth of Israel saith, hear ye Foundations of the earth, Chapt. 6.2. It is with you (by the help of Christ) to lay such Foundations as shall make Posterity either happy or miserable. David improved the power which God in his providence entrusted him with, to serve his Generation according to the will of God, Act. 13.36. And therefore was an Eminent Blessing to all that Generation wherein he lived. If the Sins of the people under your Care and Charge should ever provoke the Lord to leave you in an hour of Temptation you cannot possibly turn aside from God alone but many others will do so too, 1. Kin. 11 33▪ & 12.30. 2. Chr. 24.18. and 33.8. Regis Exemplum — People are apt to follow the Examples of those in pl••e. You know it mentioned concerning Rehoboam, that he within a few years after his coming to the Government did forsake the Lord and all Israel with him, 2. Chron. 12.1.[10]

Mather goes on to discuss the importance of rulers in bringing about Reformation, giving examples:

And how is there like to be that Reformation which the Lord requires, except you that are Leaders over this people, do your utmost to promote it? Where do you read of any great and general Reformation brought to pass, except the civil Magistrate did forward it? It is true, that many times God doth make use of his Messengers and Ministers to set the Wheel a going, but then Magistrates have fallen in with them. The Prophets Haggai and Zachary set the work of Reformation upon the wheel, but Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel (that godly Magistrate) carried on the work to effect, Ezra. 5.1, 2. Luther began the Reformation in Germany, yet if some of the Princes there had not engaged with him, the work had never been carried on with such success. Calvin (and other eminent Ministers of God) exhorted the people at Geneva, unto Reformation, but if the Senatours of that place had not hearkened to the voice of God in those Exhortations, the people would have remained unreformed still. Zwinglius by his Ministry was instrumental towards the accomplishing a great Reformation in Zurick, but then the Magistrates of that place fell in with the Word of God. Oecolampadius was an happy instrument in the hand of Christ to reform Basil; but if the Magistrates of that City had not set to their helping hand, Oecolampadius alone might have laboured in vain. The like is to be said concerning the Reformation of Bern, (not to insist on more instances) where that learned Hallerus was once a Preacher of the Gospel. I know you cannot change mens hearts, yet you may do much (if God help you) towards the effecting an outward Reformation, which will procure outward blessings and prevent outward Judgments and desolations.[11]

Choosing Rulers

Mather understood that rulers are not to be chosen as lesser of two evils -- rulers must be chosen by God's righteous standards. Choosing those who don't can bring about God's judgment: 

It is a great Privilege which you enjoy at this day, that you may choose Rulers from among your selves. And although as to what concerns the Transactions of this day, it is almost too late to speak, yet you may hear for the time to come. Freemen, remember the oath of God that is upon you. I doubt there is lamentable guilt upon many, who in Elections are acted more by interest and Faction than by conscience. You know what the Rule is, viz. that you should Choose men that are just, and that fear God and hate Covetousness. Choose men that shall aprove themselves (like Eliakim) Fathers to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Choose men of Hezekiah's Spirit, who spake comfortably to all those that taught the good knowledg[e] of the Lord. In a word, choose those that will be zealous for the interest of Reformation, and that therefore will improve their power to suppress Transgressions of the first, as well as of the 2nd. Table. If you will choose such (which mercy forbid that ever it should be) under whose shaddow Thorns and Briars shall thrive, and those Weeds of Pride, Cont••tion, Heresie shall receive Nourishment, and Encouragement; it will be an Ominous sign that God will ere long deprive you of your Liberties until such time as you know better how to improve them.[12]

Notes
_________________________________

[1] Increase Mather, Cases of Conscience Concerning Evil Spirits Personating Men; Witchcrafts, Infallible Proofs of Guilt in such as are Accussed with that CRIME (London: John Dunton, 1693). In Cotton Mather, The Wonders of the Invisible World: Being an Account of the Tryals of Several Witches Lately Executed in New-England (London: John Russell Smith, 1862), 275, 276.
[2] Ibid., 268, 269.
[3] Ibid., 283.
[4] Ibid., 275.

[5] Increase Mather, An Earnest Exhortation To the Inhabitants of New England,ed. Reiner Smolinski (1676) (University of Nebraska - Lincoln, 1998), 14, 15. Retrieved January 13, 2015 from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=etas
[6] Ibid., 21.

[7] Increase Mather, A call from heaven, to the present and succeeding generations or A discourse wherein is shewed I. That the children of godly parents are under special advantages and encouragements to seek the Lord.: II. The exceeding danger of apostasie, especially as to those that are the children and posterity of such as have been eminent for God in their generation. : III. That young men ought to remember God their creator. (originally written 1639-1723) (Boston, MA: R. P. for I. Brunning, 1685), 47 - ?. Retrieved August 26, 2016, from http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/evans/N00318.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext. We have made some slight modifications to the English in some of the quotes from this work.

[8] Ibid., 104-105.
[9] Ibid., 105-109.
[10] Ibid., 94 - 96.
[11] Ibid., 110, 111.
[12] Ibid., 130, 131.

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).