TO WHAT SHALL WE COMPARE THESE TIMES?

Someone on a discussion group I am on recently asked this question: “Are there any parallels between our current time and the pre-Reformation period?” My answer was yes, there are, but more importantly, what we need to understand more than these parallels with pre-Reformation times are the parallels between now and pre-Constantinian Rome. We face a situation today that has not existed since before Constantine, since the time of the pagan Roman emperors. This was not the case with pre-Reformation times. It is these parallels with pagan Rome that we need to understand today. There is an aphorism that says “Nature abhors a vacuum.”[1] The unpalatable truth is that the vacuum left by the Christian Church’s abandonment of her calling to be salt and light to the nations is being filled increasingly by the values of a worldview that is in many respects similar to that of pagan Rome, and it is this worldview that is shaping our modern world. 

Since the time of Constantine until fairly recently Western society has acknowledged the higher law of God and believed that all human government and law must recognise and conform to the higher law of God. This was never perfectly practised of course, and there was much failure in this respect and many tyrants who wanted it otherwise. But the principle was acknowledged and understood. It was impossible in mediaeval times to swear away one’s higher allegiance to God. In every oath of fealty that was taken there was always a saving of the faith due to God, i.e. one swore allegiance to one’s lord in life and limb, to obey in all things, save only in one’s duty to God. No man could swear away his higher duty to God and no prince could legitimately demand it.

“In the Leges Henrici we may find the high-water-mark of English vassalism.  Every man owed faith to his lord of life and limb and earthly worship, and must observe his lord’s command in all that is honourable and proper, saving the faith due to God and the ruler of his land; but theft, treason, murder, or anything that is against God and the catholic faith, such things are to be commanded by none, and done by none. Saving these, however, faith must be kept to lords, more especially to a liege lord, and without his consent one may have no other lord.”[2]

View fullsize

No matter how bad things got, and they did get pretty bad, man’s higher duty to God was always acknowledged. It is this fact that gives meaning to the Christian doctrine of the rule of law, which did not mean that all a prince had to do to get his own way was to pass a law, but rather that all law of princes or States must conform to the higher law of God—see the diagram.[3] Or, as a doctrine of English common law put it, “Any law is or of right ought to be according to the law of God.”[4] The prince or State was under God. Even in the worst tyrannies this was understood, even though abused.

This is no longer the case today. Secular humanist States and governments acknowledge no higher law than their own. They are a law unto themselves. And in making themselves the highest law in the land, beyond which there is no appeal to the higher law of God, they effectively put themselves in the place of God,—i.e. they effectively claim the attributes of God. In Western history one has to go back to the time before Constantine, to the pagan Roman Emperors, to find this divine status of the prince or State. This is what attribution of divinity the Roman Emperors really meant. It was a political fact—the emperors did not really believe they were divine (except those that were insane), but they did see Roman law as ultimate, and that man’s allegiance to Rome came first, before all else, and this was symbolised in the Imperial Cult, i.e. emperor worship. This was a political issue not a religious issue in the narrow sense, i.e. a question of personal devotion to a deity.

Rome did not care whom one worshipped as a personal deity, and there were many mystery cults with different gods one could participate in. Rome wanted Christians to behave in the same way that members of the mystery cults behaved, i.e. worship Christ to your hearts content in your private devotions, but your politics must be the politics of Rome, you must give your political allegiance to Rome. The Christians refused and said no, Jesus is Lord, and claimed to be members of his ecclesia first—ecclesia is a political term not a cultic term[5]. This was a political statement of rebellion against Rome and treason against Rome. Rome, symbolised by Emperor worship, was in the place of God. No higher law or Lord was acknowledged or permitted.

From the time of Constantine onwards this changed. No matter how badly the principle of man’s higher duty to God was practised it was still understood. Today though, for the first time since the age of the pagan Roman emperors the denial of this principle is a reality. Modern States and politicians no longer see themselves as bound by God’s higher law and no longer acknowledge this principle. Even where there is a theoretical and constitutional commitment to it, as in Britain, in practice it is denied and Parliament no longer takes account of it in its law-making. In this respect there are parallels between our political systems and ancient pre-Christian Rome.

But it gets worse. This principle is no longer even believed in the Church on the whole. And the reason that this principle is no longer acknowledged by the State is because the Church herself has abandoned it. The apostasy of the Church has paved the way and lighted the path to the apostasy of the State.

Some years ago I spent some time studying and reading up on the history of the mediaeval period, from late classical times onward, and particularly (though not exclusively) the history of heresy, particularly the dualist heresies, from the Manichees through to the Bogomils and onto the Cathars. One of the things that has stood out about this, and that I see being frequently brought up by most of the authors I have read is this. The orthodox accept the Old Testament, Moses, and the law of God; the heretics reject them. The heretics have a truncated Scripture. Time and again this comes out. The orthodox accept the law of Moses; the heretics reject it. Of course this does not mean that the orthodox have a perfect understanding or completely consistent theology and practice of the law; far from it (none of us have—we all have a long way to go). But there is a principle that is accepted by the orthodox and rejected by the heretics. While in the past, however imperfectly the orthodox practised the faith (and at times it is truly excruciating to read the history of orthodoxy let alone heresy), the law of God, the Old Testament and Moses have in principle been accepted by the orthodox. Those that rejected these were the heretics.

Today, this situation is reversed. The Church as a whole now rejects the Old Testament, Moses and the law of God; those who accept these are considered to have a faulty and “legalistic” theology at best, even if they are not considered heretical (and often they are). The Church of the twentieth century is heretical to the core because of this. “New Testament Christianity” is heretical at heart. There were no New Testament Christians in the New Testament Church. They did not have a New Testament. The Scripture of the New Testament Church was the Old Testament. When did the New Testament replace the Old? Not in the New Testament Church. Not in the sub-apostolic age. Not in mediaeval times. Not at the time of the Reformation. Not until the twentieth century—except among the heretics. Until the twentieth century, the rejection of the Old Testament, Moses and the law of God was a definitive feature of heresy. It still is. This is the age of heresy.

This continues to be a highly relevant and problematic issue. Throughout the 2000 year history of Christianity there have only been two groups of people that have rejected the Old Testament, Moses and the law of God: heretics and modern evangelicals. Or rather, I should perhaps really say, only one group of people: heretics. The modern apostate and heretical Church has led the world to ruin. It is time for the salt that has lost its saltiness to be thrown out and trampled underfoot, time for new wineskins.

Notes:

1. This statement has been attributed to Aristotle and was later restated by others such as Galileo. It was originally meant in a physical sense rather than as a social metaphor.

2. Pollock and Maitland, The History of English Law Before the Time of Edward I (Cambridge University Press, 1911), Vol. I, p. 300.

3. Doctor and Student: or Dialogues between A Doctor of Divinity and A Student in the Laws of England was a important and well-known treatise on English law by Christopher Saint Germain published in 1523 in Latin and in 1531 in English.

4. Cited in A. K. R. Kiralfy, Potter’s Historical Introduction to English Law (London: Sweet and Maxwell Ltd, Fourth Edition, 1958), p. 32. This statement is taken from a Year Book in the reign of Henry VII.

5. For a more detailed explanation of this see my book: The Politics of God and the Politics of Man: Essays on Politics, Religion and Social Order (Kuyper Foundation, 2016), Chapter Two, (available from the Kuyper Foundation website: www.kuyper.org/books).