Mr
Federer has made the assertion yet again:
For Israel's first four
centuries it did not have a king, being ruled instead by the Law.
This
is a good example of the mistake of allowing one’s prejudices to influence his
reading of history. Ancient Israel was
never ‘ruled by the law’ but instead by judges who were appointed directly by God,
not by ‘the people’. No votes were cast
to elect Moses, Joshua, or their successors to their positions of authority. It is true that they used the Law to guide
their decisions, but to claim that there was not a single individual ruling
over the post-Exodus Hebrew nation is absurd.
And the verses often quoted by dedicated republicans (Exodus 18:25,
Deut. 1:15, etc.) confirm the same thing:
Moses, the anointed of God, not the people, had the final say over who
would rule over the thousands, hundreds, and so on. Ancient Israel, to repeat what others have
pointed out, was indeed a proto-monarchy, and it was the fulfilment of God’s
plan for Israel for her to have kings, not a deviation from it. Hence the preparation for it in certain
sections of the Law, and all the praise of monarchy in the Psalms and elsewhere
(one will not find any praise for republicanism in the Holy Scriptures). Hence the respect for the anointed king
throughout the history of Christendom, with the exception of a few mule-headed
Protestant sects who think they know better than everyone else how government ought
to be organized.
But
Mr Federer does bring the main issue to the fore: Is the authority to rule granted from above
by God to His anointed king, or from below by the people to their elected representative(s)? Those who choose the latter are abetting the
forces of chaos, of Antichrist:
In
spite of this, the monarchist parties played an essential role in shoring up
support for the Tsar and Tsarism at a critical time. And that is why the best
churchmen of the time supported them, entering into open battle with the
leftists. For there could be no real unity between those who ascribed ultimate
power to the Tsar and those who ascribed it to the Duma. Moreover, the struggle
between the “reds” and the “blacks” was not simply a struggle between different
interpretations of the October manifesto, or between monarchists and
constitutionalists, but between two fundamentally incompatible world-views -
the Orthodox Christian and the Masonic-Liberal-Ecumenist. It was a struggle
between two fundamentally opposed views of where true authority comes from –
God or the people. As Bishop Andronicus, the future hieromartyr,
wrote: “It is not a question of the struggle between two administrative
regimes, but of a struggle between faith and unbelief, between Christianity and
antichristianity. The ancient antichristian plot, which was begun by those who
shouted furiously to Pilate about Jesus Christ: ‘Crucify Him, crucify Him: His
blood be on us and on our children’ - continued in various branches and secret
societies. In the 16th century it poured into the special secret
antichristian order of the Templars, and in the 18th century it became
more definite in the Illuminati, the Rosecrucians and, finally, in Freemasonry it
merged into a universal Jewish organization. And now, having gathered strength
to the point where France is completely in the hands of the Masons, it –
Masonry – already openly persecutes Christianity out of existence there. In the
end Masonry will be poured out into one man of iniquity, the son of destruction
– the Antichrist (II Thessalonians 2). In this resides the solution of the
riddle of our most recent freedoms: their aim is the destruction of
Christianity in Rus’. That is why what used to be the French word ‘liberal’,
which meant among the Masons a ‘generous’ contributor to the Masonic aims, and
then received the meaning of ‘freedom-loving’ with regard to questions of
faith, has now already passed openly over to antichristianity. In this resides
the solution of the riddle of that stubborn battle for control of the school,
which is being waged in the zemstvos and the State Duma: if the
liberal tendency gains control of the school, the success of antichristianity
is guaranteed. In this resides the solution of the riddle of the sympathy of
liberals for all kinds of sects in Christianity and non-Christian religions.
And the sectarians have not been slumbering – they have now set about attacking
the little children… And when your children grow up and enter university –
there Milyukov and co. will juggle with the facts and deceive them, teaching
them that science has proved man’s origin from the apes. And they will really
make our children into beasts, with just this difference, that the ape is a
humble and obedient animal whereas these men-beasts will be proud, bold, cruel
and unclean….”[14]
Archbishop
Anthony (Khrapovitsky) put the monarchist case in February, 1907: “Perhaps
there are countries which are best ruled not by tsars, but by many leaders. But
our kingdom, which consists of a multitude of races, various faiths and customs
that are hostile to each other, can stand only when at its head there stands
one Anointed of God, who gives account to nobody except God and His
commandments. Otherwise all the races that inhabit the Russian land would go
against each other with knives, and would not be pacified until they had
themselves destroyed each other, or had submitted to the power of the enemies
of Russia. Only the White Tsar is venerated by all the peoples of Russia; for
his sake they obey the civil laws, go into the army and pay their taxes. Our
tsars are the friends of the people and preservers of the holy faith, and the
present Sovereign Nicholas Alexandrovich is the meekest and quietest of all the
kings of the whole world. He is the crown of our devotion to our native land
and you must stand for him to your last drop of blood, not allowing anybody to
diminish his sacred power, for with the fall of this power, Russia also will
fall…
“Russian
man, lend your ear to your native land: what does it tell you? ‘From the
righteous Princess Olga, from the equal-to-the-apostles Vladimir until the days
of Seraphim of Sarov and to the present day and to future ages all the wise
leaders of my people think and say the same,’ that is what the land will reply
to you… ‘They taught their contemporaries and their descendants one and the
same thing: both the princes, and the tsars, and the hierarchs who sat on the
Church sees, and the hermits who hid amidst the forest and on the islands of
the sea, and the military commanders, and the warriors, and the boyars, and the
simple people: they all taught to look on this life as the entrance courtyard
into the future life, they all taught to use it in such a way as not to console
the flesh, but to raise the soul to evangelical virtue, to preserve the
apostolic faith unharmed, to keep the purity of morals and truthfulness of
speech, to honour the tsars and those placed in authority by them, to listen to
and venerate the sacred monastic order, not to envy the rich, but to compete
with the righteous ones, to love to work the land as indicated by God to our
race through Adam and Noah, and to turn to other crafts only out of necessity
or because of a special talent; not to borrow the corrupt habits of foreigners,
their proud, lying and adulterous morals, but to preserve the order of the
fatherland, which is fulfilled through chastity, simplicity and evangelical
love; to stand fearlessly for your native land on the field of battle and to study
the law of God in the sacred books.’ That is what our land teaches us, that is
what the wise men and righteous ones of all epochs of our history entrusted to
us, in which there was no disagreement between them, but complete unanimity.
The whole of Rus’ thinks in the same way. But she knows that only the Anointed
of God must preserve this spirit and defend it from enemies visible and
invisible by his mighty right hand. And look he hardly stepped back from life
when his popular privileges were snatched from him by deception and violence by
his enemies and the enemies of the people. Yes, the Russian people thinks and
feels one thing: in its eyes public life is a general exploit of virtue, and
not the realm of secular pleasures, it is the laborious increase of the Kingdom
of God amongst us ourselves and its implanting in the unenlightened tribes, and
not the equalisation of all faiths and superstitions. The Orthodox people knows
and feels this. It feels that without one ruling royal right hand it is impossible
for our land of many tribes to exist. In it are 102 different faiths, 102
tribes that will now nourish malicious enmity against each other immediately
they cease to feel the ruling right hand of the White Tsar above them. Let him
hear out the reports of the people’s delegates, let him allow them to express
their opinions on various matters of the kingdom. But the final decision will
be made by him himself, and he will give an account for this only through his
conscience before the Lord God. One only submission, one only limitation of his
power is necessary to the people: that openly on the day of his crowning he
should confess his Orthodox faith to God and the people in accordance with the
Symbol of the Fatherland – so that he should not have human arbitrariness, but
the evangelical law of God as his unfailing guide in his sovereign decisions
and undertakings. That is the kingdom we need, and this is understood not only
by Russian people, but also by people of other faiths who live in our land with
a healthy people’s reasoning, and not through lies and deceit: both Tatars and
Kirgiz and the old Jews who believe in their own way, and the distant Tunguz.
All of them know that shaking the Tsar’s Autocracy means beginning the
destruction of the whole of Russia…”[15]
--Dr Vladimir Moss, http://orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/951/-black-hundreds/
--
Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England,
South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð,
unworthy though we are!
Anathema to the Union!
No comments:
Post a Comment