History of Holy Days (7/7) The Christian
Sabbath/Lord's Day, Christmas, Easter,... - Holy Days (Lord's Day, Christmas, Easter, etc.) - Against Pagan and Roman Catholic Holy-days
(Holidays) Like Christmas, Easter, etc. (free book, MP3s and videos)
by Kevin Reed
To speak against Christmas observance is
considered by many people to be sacrilegious and others as religious
fanaticism. After all, how can anyone legitimately oppose such a hallowed
institution?
The purpose of this study is to set forth
scriptural reasons for opposing Christmas celebration. A brief historical
survey will provide the suitable means for such an examination. Following an
initial look at the origins of Christmas, we will note historic opposition to
its observance, with special emphasis on Protestant objections to the holiday.
We will see that Protestants, and especially Presbyterians, have rejected
Christmas celebration, as demonstrated by the following facts: (1.) the
scriptural principles of worship upheld by Reformed churches; (2.) the
confessional testimony of the churches; (3.) the historic practice of the
churches in their most orthodox times.
The ignoble nature of the origins and
customs of Christmas can be found in many standard reference sources;
therefore, we will not dwell on them in great detail. It is appropriate,
however, to mention a few highly significant facts pertaining to the origins
behind Christmas.
Evidence points to the fourth century as
the time when Christmas
celebration began. Records covering the first three centuries of New
Testament church history mention an increasing significance given to the period
from Passover to Pentecost; yet, evidence is lacking to prove any celebration
regarding the Savior's birth.[1] In the middle of the
third century, Origin gives a list of fasts and festivals which were observed
in his time, and no mention is made of Christmas.[2]
The lack of such testimony supports the conclusion that no celebration was then
observed.
Although there was no Christmas observance
at this time, there were various pagan celebrations held in conjunction with
the winter solstice.
In Scandinavia, the great feast of Yule with all
its various ceremonies, had celebrated the birth of the winter sun-god. In the
Latin countries there reigned Saturnalia, a cult of the god Saturn. The date December 25, coincided also with
the birth of Attis, a Phrygian cult of the sun-god, introduced into Rome under
the Empire. The popular feasts attached to the births of other sun-gods such as
Mithras, were also invariably celebrated at the time of the winter solstice.[3]
The transition from festivals
commemorating the birth of a sun god to a celebration ostensibly for the Son of
God occurred sometime in the fourth century. Unable to eradicate the heathen
celebration of Saturnalia, the Church of Rome, sometime before 336 A.D.,
designated a Feast of the Nativity to be observed.[4]
Many of the customs associated with
Christmas also took their origins from the heathen obser vances. The exchanging
of gifts, extravagant merriment, and lighting of candles all have previous
counterparts in the Roman Saturnalia. The use of trees harkens back to the
pagan Scandinavian festival of Yule.[5]
This process of assimilation is
characteristic of Roman Catholicism throughout the centuries. Within Roman
Catholicism, there is no policy designed to eradicate such heathen practices;
rather, the general practice is to foster assimilation by replacing pagan
superstitions with similar ecclesiastical institutions. An example of this
policy is illustrated by a letter which Pope Gregory wrote to Abbot Mellitus on
how to order things in Britain (A.D. 606):
The temples of the idols among the people should on
no account be destroyed. The idols themselves are to be destroyed, but the
temples themselves are to be aspersed with holy water, altars set up in them,
and relics deposited there. For if these temples are well-built, they must be
purified from the worship of demons and dedicated to the service of the true
God. In this way, we hope that the people, seeing that their temples are not
destroyed, may abandon their error and, flocking more readily to their
accustomed resorts, may come to know and adore the true God. And since they
have a custom of sacrificing many oxen to demons, let some other solemnity be
substituted in its place, such as a day of Dedication or Festivals of the holy
martyrs whose relics are enshrined there. On such occasion they might well
construct shelters of boughs for themselves around the churches that were once
temples, and celebrate the solemnity with devout feasting.[6]
This is quite a program! The church is
encouraged to give the pagans ecclesiastical relics, rites, ceremonies, and
festive celebrations as a substitute for their heathen ones. This policy
differs greatly from the conduct of the children of God who cut down sacred
groves, destroyed the remnants of idolatry, or burned their heathen books in
order to make a clean break with pagan ways (Ex. 34:13; Deut. 12:2-4, 29-32;
2Kings 18:4; Acts 19:19).
The theory of conquest through
assimilation is only too apparent in an examination of Christmas. A casual
glance will show how the holiday incorporates heathen observances on a
world-wide scale. Each culture seems to have its own local
"contribution" to the celebration of Christmas. The serious question
for the Christian is this: Are we not commanded, "Learn not the way of the
heathen" (Jer. 10:2)?
Along with Rome's direct infusion of
paganism, the papal church has added some novelties of its own. The principal
perversion is the celebration of the Mass. Since the middle ages, the concept
of transubstantiation has been an integral part of Popish worship. Roman
Catholics contend that the communion elements are transformed into the actual
body and blood of Christ, in order to offer a re -sacrifice of Christ a sacrifice which is said to possess propitiatory
merits. The Mass is a blasphemous assault upon the finality and perfection of
Christ's sacrifice on the cross of Calvary (Cf. Heb. 9:12, 24-26; 10:10-14).
The Mass is the preeminent feature of
Christmas celebration. "In the Roman Catholic Church three masses are
usually said to symbolize the birth of Christ eternally in the bosom of the
Father, from the womb of Mary and mystically in the soul of the faithful."[7] The concept of the Mass is embedded in the English
term Christmas, its etymology
being traced to the Old English words Christes maesse, meaning "the mass or festival of
Christ."[8]
Because of its pagan and papal
associations, Christmas met strong objections during and after the Protestant
Reformation. This opposition was especially forceful among Presbyterians.
At times during the sixteenth century, ecclesiastical holidays caused
agitation in the city of Geneva. It seems to have been a difficult matter for a
resolution, since any official action taken would stir up some element of the
population.
The Register of Ministers in Geneva (1546) records a list of "faults which
contravene the Reformation." Among the directives regarding
"Superstitions" is the following: "Those who observe Romish
festivals or fasts shall only be reprimanded, unless they remain obstinately
rebellious. "[9]
On Sunday, 16 November 1550, an edict was
issued concerning holidays; it was a decree "respecting the abrogation of
all festivals, with the exception of Sundays, which God had ordained. "[10] This ban on festival days (including Christmas)
caused an uproar in certain quarters, and Calvin was reproached as the
instigator of the action.
Calvin's personal writings about holidays,
in this instance, are somewhat ambiguous. He says he was not directly involved
in the decision. In personal correspondence with John Haller (pastor in Berne),
Calvin writes, "Before I ever entered the city, there were no festivals
but the Lord's day." He added, "If I had got my choice, I should not
have decided in favor of what has now been agreed upon."[11]
It seems that Calvin was initially uneasy
about the edict to ban the festivals, because he feared that the "sudden
change" might provoke tumult which could impede the course of the Reformation.
Nevertheless, in the same letter to Haller, Calvin says, "Although I have
neither been the mover nor instigator to it, yet, since it has so happened, I
am not sorry for it."[12]
Although Calvin's correspondence
respecting this edict sounds ambiguous, his general views on worship are
clearly stated in many places. In a tract on The Necessity of Reforming the
Church, Calvin exclaims:
I know how difficult it is to persuade the world
that God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by His
Word. The opposite persuasion which cleaves to them, being seated, as it were,
in their very bones and marrow, is, that whatever they do has in itself a
sufficient sanction, provided it exhibits some kind of zeal for the honor of
God. But since God not only regards as frivolous, but also plainly abominates,
whatever we undertake from zeal to His worship, if at variance with His
command, what do we gain by a contrary course? The words of God are clear and
distinct, "Obedience is better than sacrifice." "In vain do they
worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men," 1 Sam. 15:22;
Matt. 15:9. Every addition of His word, especially in this matter, is a lie.
Mere "will worship" (ethelothreeskia) is vanity [Col. 2:23]. This is the decision, and
when once the judge has decided, it is no longer time to debate.[13]
In speaking of various corruptions of
worship, Calvin comments:
I come now to ceremonies, which, while they ought
to be grave attestations of divine worship, are rather a mere mockery of God. A
new Judaism, as a substitute for that which God has distinctly abrogated, has
again been reared up by means of numerous puerile extravagancies, collected
from different quarters; and with these have been mixed up certain impious
rites, partly borrowed from the heathen, and more adapted to some theatrical
show than to the dignity of our religion. The first evil here is, that an
immense number of ceremonies, which God had by his authority abrogated, once
for all, have been again revived. The next evil is, that while ceremonies ought
to be living exercises of piety, men are vainly occupied with numbers of them
that are both frivolous and useless. But by far the most deadly evil of all is,
that after men have thus mocked God with ceremonies of one kind or other, they
think they have fulfilled their duty as admirably as if these ceremonies
included in the whole essence of piety and divine worship.[14]
And in yet more pointed remarks, Calvin
says:
The mockery which worships God with nought but
external gestures and absurd human fictions, how could we, without sin, allow
to pass unrebuked? We know how much he hates hypocrisy, and yet in that
fictitious worship, which was everywhere in use, hypocrisy reigned. We hear how
bitter the terms in which the prophets inveigh against all worship fabricated
by human rashness. But a good intention, i.e., an insane license of daring whatever man pleased,
was deemed the perfection of worship. For it is certain that in the whole body
of worship which had been established, there was scarcely a single observance
which had an authoritative sanction from the Word of God.
We
are not in this matter to stand either by our own or by other men's judgments.
We must listen to the voice of God, and hear in what estimation he holds that
profanation of worship which is displayed when men, overleaping the boundaries
of His Word, run riot in their own inventions. The reasons which he assigns for
punishing the Israelites with blindness, after they had lost the pious and holy
discipline of the Church, are two, viz., the prevalence of hypocrisy, and will-worship (ejqeloqrhskeiva), meaning thereby a form of worship contrived by
man. "Forasmuch," says he, "as the people draw near me with
their mouth, and with the lips do honor me, but have removed their heart far
from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men; therefore I
will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work
and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the
understanding of their prudent men shall be hid," Isa. 29:13-14. When God
stirred us up, a similar or worse perversity openly domineered throughout the
Church. While God, then, was thundering from heaven, were we to sit quiet?[15]
Thus, Calvin's writings on worship clearly
enunciate the concept which has subsequently been called the regulative
principle of worship: all modes of
worship must be expressly sanctioned by God's word, if they are to be
considered legitimate. Since Christmas observances, and other ecclesiastical
festivals, are not commanded in the scriptures, they fail to meet divine
approval, even if there were no additional objections to them.
Further, we should note Calvin's own
pastoral practice as indicative of his convictions. The Reformer preached
consecutively through books of the Bible, without regard to the ecclesiastical
year. Surely if Calvin had adopted the attitude of modern Christmas-keepers, he
would have felt constrained to abandon this systematic instruction of the
scriptures, and deliver annual discourses from the birth narratives during the
month of December. The fact that he did not comply with contemporary
expectations speaks volumes.[16]
From the outset of the Scottish
Reformation, the discussion focussed upon the nature of true worship. John Knox
repeatedly confronted his papal adversaries by contending that true worship
must be instituted by God. True worship is not derived from the innovations of
men.
At the heart of Knox's argument is an
appeal to Deuteronomy 4 and 12. These portions of scripture teach that it is unlawful
to add to, or subtract from, the worship which God has instituted in his Word.
Consequently, all religious ceremonies and institutions must have direct
scriptural warrant if they are to be admitted as valid expressions of worship.
This statement of the regulative principle of worship was a hallmark of the
Scottish reformation.
Knox made his case for the regulative
principle at the beginning of his ministry, before he had studied on the
Continent. Knox condemned the false worship of Roman Catholicism. In a public
debate against the Papists, Knox declared:
That God's word damns your ceremonies, it is
evident; for the plain and straight commandment of God is, "Not that thing
which appears good in thy eyes, shalt thou do to the Lord thy God, but what the
Lord thy God has commanded thee, that do thou: add nothing to it; diminish
nothing from it." Now unless that ye are able to prove that God has
commanded your ceremonies, this his former commandment will damn both you and
them.[17]
With this understanding of worship, the
Scottish Church cast out a multitude of the monuments of idolatry which were
part of papal worship; graven images, the Mass, false sacraments, Romish
liturgical ceremonies, and Roman bishops were all removed from the Church.
Ecclesiastical holidays were also expelled from the Church of Scotland.
In 1560, Knox and several others drew up
the First Book of Discipline. In this book, the First Head of Doctrine begins
with a general statement on the nature of the gospel.[18]
After the opening statement, an
"explication" is given which asserts the sole authority of scripture
as it relates to doctrine and worship. Note the firm condemnation of holidays,
as incorporated in this remarkable document:
Lest upon this our generality ungodly men take
occasion to cavil, this we add for explication. By preaching of the Evangel, we
understand not only the Scriptures of the New Testament, but also of the Old;
to wit, the Law, Prophets, and Histories, in which Christ Jesus is no less
contained in figure, than we have him now expressed in verity. And, therefore,
with the Apostle, we affirm that "all Scripture inspired of God is
profitable to instruct, to reprove, and to exhort." In which Books of Old
and New Testaments we affirm that all things necessary for the instruction of
the Kirk, and to make the man of God perfect, are contained and sufficiently
expressed.
By
contrary Doctrine, we understand whatsoever men, by Laws, Councils, or
Constitutions have imposed upon the consciences of men, without the expressed
commandment of God's word: such as be vows of chastity, foreswearing of
marriage, binding of men and women to several and disguised apparels, to the
superstitious observation of fasting days, difference of meat for conscience
sake, prayer for the dead; and keeping of holy days of certain Saints commanded
by men, such as be all those that the Papists have invented, as the Feasts (as
they term them) of Apostles, Martyrs, Virgins, of Christmas, Circumcision,
Epiphany, Purification, and other fond feasts of our Lady. Which things,
because in God's scriptures they neither have commandment nor assurance, we
judge them utterly to be abolished from this Realm; affirming further, that the
obstinate maintainers and teachers of such abominations ought not to escape the
punishment of the Civil Magistrate.[19]
The position of the Scottish Church was
reaffirmed in 1566. Theodore Beza wrote to Knox, requesting Scottish approval
for the Second Helvetic Confession (1566). The General Assembly in Scotland
replied with a letter of general
approval. Nevertheless, the Assembly could
scarcely refrain from mentioning, with regard to
what is written in the 24th chapter of the aforesaid Confession concerning the
"festival of our Lord's nativity, circumcision, passion, resurrection,
ascension, and sending the Holy Ghost upon his disciples," that these
festivals at the present time obtain no place among us; for we dare not
religiously celebrate any other feast-day than what the divine oracles
prescribed.[20]
When King James took the throne in
England, he repudiated Presbyterianism and became an advocate of the Anglican
Church government, because it was more compatible with his notions of monarchy.
At the Assembly of Perth, in 1617, the king sought to impose various ceremonies
designed to enhance the Episcopal cause. The liturgical impositions included
receiving communion in a kneeling position, private administration of the
sacraments, Episcopal confirmation, and the observance of Christmas, Easter,
Whitsuntide, and the Ascension. Scottish ministers resisted this action, with a
supplication against all points of the program.[21]
David Calderwood (1575-1651) represents
the firm opposition given by faithful Scottish ministers. He issued a pointed
critique of the Perth Assembly,
published in 1619, in which he attacked these innovations in worship that were
imposed upon the Church of Scotland.
In a section on festival days, Calderwood
asserts that only God has the prerogative "to appoint a day of rest and to
sanctify it to his honor." Under the law of God, no one presumed to appoint
holy days "but God, and that either by Himself, or by some extraordinary
direction. "[22]
Moreover, the anniversary days prescribed
by God "pertained to the ceremonial law; but so it is that the ceremonial
law is abolished. The anniversary days were distinguished from the moral
sabbath;" only the ordinary (weekly) sabbath remains. "The moral use
of the ordinary sabbath was for the service of God in general both private and
public. The mystical use [of the anniversary days] was to be a memorial of
things bypast, and a shadow of things to come. The moral use endures, the
mystical uses are vanished." "The Judaical days had once that honor,
as to be appointed by God himself; but the anniversary days appointed by men
have not the like honor."[23]
Calderwood continues, "If it had been
the will of God that the several acts of Christ should have been celebrated
with several solemnities, the Holy Ghost would have made known to us the day of
his nativity, circumcision, presentation in the temple, baptism,
transfiguration, and the like." "This opinion of Christ's nativity on
the 25th day of December was bred at Rome." He then exposes some of the
preposterous Romish claims made for the 25th day of December as the day of
Christ's birth; and he notes inconsistent claims, made in previous centuries,
for other dates on the calendar, as the day of the Savior's nativity. "The
diversity of the ancients observing some the 6th day of January, some the 19th
day of April, some the 19th of May, some the 25th day of December, argues that
the Apostles never ordained it." "You see then as God hid the body of
Moses, so has he hid this day, and other days depending on the calculation of
it, wherein he declared his will concerning the other days of his notable acts:
to wit, that not Christ's action, but Christ's institution makes a day
holy." "Nay, let us utter the truth, December-Christmas is a just
imitation of the December-Saturnal of the ethnic [heathen] Romans, and so used as if Bacchus, and not Christ,
were the God of Christians."[24]
"It is commonly objected, that we may
as well keep a day for the nativity, as for the resurrection of Christ. We have
answered already, that Christ's day, or the Lord's Day, is the day appointed
for remembrance of his nativity, and all his action and benefits, as well as
for the resurrection. "[25]
Further, says Calderwood, even supposing
that the keeping of holy days was initially indifferent, the festival days must now be
abolished, because "they are abused and polluted with superstition."
Indeed, the brazen serpent was originally constructed by God's express command;
yet it was destroyed when it became a snare to the people of God (2 Kings
18:4). How much more, then, should we discard man-made observances which are
additionally contaminated with Romish superstition and idolatry.[26]
In 1628, David Calderwood issued a small
work, The Pastor and the Prelate.
In a witty and bold manner, this small volume illustrates the contrasting views
of the Presbyterians (represented by the Pastor), and the Prelatical party. In
the appropriate sections pertaining to worship, Calderwood again touches upon
the "holy days." "Beside the sabbath," the Pastor "can
admit no ordinary holidays appointed by man, whether in respect of any mystery,
or of difference of one day from another, as being warranted by mere tradition,
against the doctrine of Christ and his apostles...." In contrast,
"The Prelate, by his doctrine, practice, example, and neglect of
discipline, declares that he has no such reverent estimation of the sabbath. He
dotes so upon the observation of Pasche, Yule, and festival days appointed by
men, that he prefers them to the sabbath, and has turned to nothing our solemn
fasts and blessed humiliations."[27]
THE PASTOR, comparing the worship of God under the
gospel with the worship under the law, finds that the commandment, Deut. 12:32,
"Every word that I command you, that ye shall observe to do; thou shalt
not add unto it, neither shalt ye diminish from it," does equally concern
both: that the mind of man, if left to itself, would prove as vain and foolish
under the gospel as under the law, and that Jesus Christ was faithful as a son
in all the house of God, above Moses, who was but a servant; and therefore,
albeit the ceremonial observations under the law were many, which was the
burden of the kirk under the Old Testament, and ours be few, which is our
benefit, yet the determination from God, in all the matters of his worship, he
finds to be all particular; the direction of all the parts of our obedience to
be as clear to us that now live under the gospel, as it was to them that lived
under the law.
THE
PRELATE, as if either it were lawful now to add to the word, or man's mind were
in a better frame, or the Son of God not so faithful as Moses the servant, or
as if direction in few ceremonies could not be as plain as in many, would bring
into the kirk a new ceremonial law, made up of translations of divine worship,
of imitations of false worship, and of inventions of will-worship, to succeed
to the abolished ceremonies under the law, which he interprets to be the
liberty and power of the Christian kirk in matters indifferent, above the kirk
of the Old Testament, but is indeed the great door whereby himself and others
(strange office-bearers, whereby days, altars, vestures, cross, kneeling, and
all that Romish rabble's shadow) have entered into the kirk of Christ, and
which will never be shut again till himself be shut out, who, while he is within,
holds it wide open.
THE
PASTOR gives no power to the kirk to appoint other things in the worship of
God, than are appointed already by Christ, the only lawgiver of his kirk, but
to set down canons and constitutions about things before appointed, and to
dispose the circumstances of order and decency that are equally necessary in
civil and religious actions....
THE
PRELATE, as a new lawgiver, will appoint new rites and mystical signs in the
kirk, that depend upon mere institution, and are not concluded upon any reason
of Christian prudence for such a time and place, but upon grounds unchangeable,
and therefore obliging at all times and places, as is evident by the reason
that he brings for festival days, kneeling in the sacrament, etc."[28]
Over the next several decades, tensions
persisted within the Scottish Church because of the Anglican order imposed upon
the Scots. The Church of England was never purged of many liturgical
superstitions which were carried over from Roman Catholicism. When the Anglican
rituals (including holidays) were obtruded on the Scottish Church, militant
opposition arose among the Scots.
George Gillespie (1613-49) wrote a
definitive response to the advocates of the Anglican order. Gillespie was a
premier theologian, and later served as a Scottish Commissioner to the
Westminster Assembly. In 1637, Gillespie's book on the liturgical controversy
was published: A
Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies Obtruded Upon the Church of
Scotland.
Gillespie's work contains a four-fold
assault upon the ceremonies in general. First he argues against their
necessity; second, he dispels notions that they are expedient; third, he
demonstrates their unlawfulness; and fourth, he shows they are not indifferent.
In each section, he draws applications of general principles to specific
ceremonies which he finds objectionable. Specifically, he disputes the
propriety of kneeling in the act of receiving the Lord's Supper, the use of the
sign of the cross in baptism, confirmation, the surplice, and holidays.
The holidays take a severe beating on a
number of counts. Some of his arguments are as follows.
Gillespie cites Knox to demonstrate the
regulative principle of worship.[29] Upon this principle,
the holidays must be excluded, since they lack any positive warrant in the
scriptures.
Gillespie rests his case on the second
commandment. "The second commandment is moral and perpetual, and forbids
to us as well as to them the additions and inventions of men in the worship of
God." Therefore, "sacred significant ceremonies devised by man are to
be reckoned among those images forbidden in the second commandment."[30]
Based upon Galatians 4:10 and Colossians
2:16, Gillespie notes the passing away of the biblical ceremonial feasts:
"those days having had the honor to be once appointed by God himself, were
to be honorably buried...." "If Paul condemned the observing of
feasts which God himself instituted, then much more does he condemn the
observation of feasts of man's devising."[31]
Gillespie notes the superstitious and
corrupt origins of the ceremonies. He provides numerous scripture references to
show the duty of God's people to remove all remnants of idolatry from among
them (Ex. 34:13; Num. 33:52; Deut. 7:5, 25-26; 12:2-3; Isa. 30:22) Gillespie's
opponents claim that it is enough to clear away the "abuses" of the
ceremonies, not the rites themselves; but Gillespie answers that, unless these
ceremonies can be proven to be of necessary use by God's appointment, they must
be purged completely out of existence.[32]
Further, the ceremonies are not simply the
monuments of past idolatry. They continue to be used by the Papists in their
present corrupt and idolatrous worship. Thus, these rites are the very badges
of present idolatry.
Forasmuch then, as kneeling before the consecrated
bread, the sign of the cross, surplice, festival days, bishopping, bowing to
the altar, administration of the sacraments in private places, etc. are the
wares of Rome, the baggage of Babylon, the trinkets of the whore, the badges of
Popery, the ensigns of Christ's enemies, and the very trophies of Antichrist:
we cannot conform, communicate, and symbolize with the idolatrous Papists, in
the use of the same, without making ourselves idolaters by participation.[33]
Throughout his discussion, Gillespie
touches on a critical implication of the whole discussion: the limits of church
power. Speaking of times, places, and things, Gillespie notes, "The Church
has no power as by her dedication to make them holy."[34]
The supporters of ecclesiastical holidays frequently assert the right of the
Church to institute holy seasons and observances. Such an argument smacks of
Popery, because it grants to the Church a legislative power to enact new
observances besides those given in scripture.
Further, Gillespie notes another alarming
trend. The ecclesiastical ceremonies become like sacraments in their
significance and use. The ceremonies are thought to be mystically symbolic, and
effectual teachers of spiritual things. The symbolic and didactic features of
the holidays makes them man-made (false) sacraments.
Additionally, when people urge these
observances for a didactic purpose, they undercut the sufficiency of the
scriptures.
If we consider how that the Word of God is given
unto us "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness, that the man of God may be thoroughly furnished unto all good
works:" it cannot but be evident how superfluously, how superstitiously
the office of sacred teaching and mystical signification is given to dumb and
lifeless ceremonies, ordained of men, and consequently how justly they are
taxed as vain worship.[35]
Gillespie also observes how ecclesiastical
holidays undermine the true distinction of the Lord's day. "Upon holy days
they enjoin a cessation from work, and a dedicating of the day to Divine
worship, even as upon the Lord's day." In fact, "let it be observed,
whether or not they keep the festival days more carefully, and urge the keeping
of them more earnestly, than the Lord's own day." "...And whereas
they can digest the common profanation of the Lord's day, and not challenge it,
they cannot away with the not observing of their festivities."[36]
As an additional practical criticism,
Gillespie gives a special word on the revelry associated with Christmas:
"The keeping of some festival days is set up instead of the thankful
commemoration of God's inestimable benefits: howbeit the festivity of Christmas
has hitherto served more to Bacchanalian lasciviousness than to the remembrance
of the birth of Christ."[37]
With this cursory survey of Gillespie's
monumental work, the reader is invited to consider the issues raised by
Gillespie's criticisms. The essential issues have changed very little over the
past 350 years.
Puritan opposition to Christmas
celebration is widely recognized. What is often overlooked is that Puritan
opposition was espoused by many persons living in different nations. These men
were unified on this point, although they could not agree on other vital points
of doctrine, such as church government.[38]
The Puritan argument against Christmas
(and other similar institutions) is three-fold: (1.) No time of worship is
sanctified, unless God has ordained it; (2.) unscriptural holidays are a threat
to the proper observance of the Lord's day because these holidays tend to
eclipse the sanctity which belongs only to the Lord's day, (3.) the observance
of unscriptural holidays tends toward the super stition and innovation in
worship which are characteristic of Roman Catholicism.
During the Elizabethan period, Thomas
Cartwright (1535-1603) was a strong proponent of Presbyterian polity. His
platform against Prelacy so rankled Archbishop Whitgift and other authorities,
that Cartwright was deprived of his professorship, and forced to depart England
and live on the Continent for a time.
In the 1580s, Jesuits in England were
circulating numerous religious publications aimed at subverting the
Reformation. At Rheims, in 1582, the Papists issued a translation of the New
Testament which contained marginal notations full of Popish propaganda.
Upon the request of prominent civil
patrons and ministerial colleagues, Cartwright undertook the monumental task of
writing a refutation to the Rhemists' notes on the New Testament. In 1585,
Cartwright finished his rough draft, but the publication of the work was
suppressed by Archbishop Whitgift. The ecclesiastical authorities feared that
Cartwright's reply to the Romanists "would tell against many of the
semi-Roman usages of the Church of England and bolster up the Presbyterian
Puritanism."[39] Perhaps the troubled bishop feared the truth of
that maxim, "No ceremony, no bishop."[40]
Cartwright's work was eventually published
in 1618 at Leyden, under the title of A Confutation of the Rhemists'
Translation, Glosses and Annotations on the New Testament, so far as They
Contain Manifest Impieties, Heresies, Idolatries, Superstitions, Profaneness,
Treasons, Slanders, Absurdities, Falsehoods and Other Evils.
Throughout the Confutation Cartwright manifests a decided animus against
Popish doctrines and usages. He denies the primacy of the Pope and expressly
declares him to be Antichrist.... He argues against Purgatory and the
immaculate conception of the Virgin, and condemns Mariolatry, the invocation of
saints, the veneration of relics, pilgrimages, monasticism, celibacy, auricular
confession, etc. With regard to the Sacraments two only are recognized, the
private administration of them is disal lowed, baptismal regeneration is
repudiated, and at considerable length the Roman doctrine of the Mass is
refuted. The Protestant doctrine of justification by faith receives full
treatment.
Many
of Cartwright's counter-annotations are capable of being construed as
criticisms of Anglo -Catholic teaching. He argues against the Lenten fast, the
altar, apostolic succession and disapproves of the very name of priest. His
philosophy of history is diametrically opposed to that maintained by Anglo
-Catholicism inasmuch as he regards the primitive Church as the only pure model
and the Roman Church "for the space of 980 years, or thereabout,
Anti-Christian."[41]
Cartwright's treatment of specific texts
provides some important data with reference to festival days. For example,
contemporary Christmas-keepers have sometimes cited the tenth chapter of John,
claiming that Christ's presence in Jerusalem, during the time of the feast,
indicates a divine approval of ecclesiastically-ordained festivals. Yet, this argument is essentially a Jesuit gloss,
formulated to undermine the sufficiency of the scripture as our rule of
worship. Indeed, we believe that few Christian readers would ever make a
connection between the narrative of John 10 and Christmas, had not this Romish
gloss received wide circulation.
Among his remarks on John 10:22,
Cartwright answers the Papists:
Now where they would prove the lawfulness of this
Feast by our Savior Christ's presence at it, they may as well prove the
lawfulness of the Jew's Pentecost, and such other Jewish Feasts, because Paul,
for further spread of the gospel, was not only present, but labored to be
present at that time. The Jesuits therefore are to learn that it is one thing
to tolerate and to bear with a custom or determination of the Church and
another to approve of it. The trunk therefore of this doctrine being cut down,
the boughs and branches that the Jesuits will have grow forth of it, must needs
fall to the ground.[42]
On Galatians 4:10, we find the following
comments:
If Paul condemns the Galatians for observing the
feasts which God himself instituted, and that for his own honor only, and not
for the honor of any creature: the Papists are much more laid open to
condemnation, which press observations of feasts of men's devising, and to the
honor of men. Neither can it help them that they observe them not as the Jews
did unto whom they were shadows of things to come, seeing the Galatians
believing that Christ was already come, could not keep them as figures of his
coming, but rather as memorials that he was already come....
Against
this, it is so far that the religious observation of the Lord's day makes any
thing, that it makes much for it: for that day being no ceremony, and being
before there was use of any ceremony of our redemption, remains by commandment of
the moral law, commanding a seventh day to be religiously observed. Which
seventh day the Apostles having declared to be the Lord's day, without mention
of any more holy days: have thereby defined the ordinary and perpetual time
which the fourth commandment requires at our hands. For albeit the Church might
upon occasion ordain holy days, yet neither can it make them perpetual laws,
nor for the time of their endurance, bind the conscience with so strait a bond
of obedience as it is tied to in the observation of the Lord's day....
And
if the Apostles were not fathers of the feasts which are dedicated unto Christ
himself, and to his most saving and glorious actions, much less can they be
thought to have begotten such base feasts as those are for which the Papists
strive. And notwithstanding that the Jesuits allege testimonies for them out of
ancient writers, yet neither are they of the eldest work, neither can the age
of the feasts help to justify them, when their cradle and first birth is
infamous, as it must needs be, whose pedigree cannot be fetched, nor by any
sufficient matter of record deduced from the Apostles.... Show us one of your
saints' feasts of that antiquity that the festival solemnization of the 50 days
between Easter and Whitsuntide was; which being thrown down from that stately
place of festival estimation, notwithstand ing that they were dedicated to the
honor of Christ himself: it ought not to be strange if your petty feasts be
unfeasted, and your profane holy days of idle vacation, converted into days of
profitable and needful labors.
William Ames (1576-1633), the prominent
English Puritan who lived on the Continent among the Dutch for many years, sums
up several fundamental principles relating to proper worship "No
instituted worship is lawful unless God is its author and ordainer. Deut.
4:1-2; 12:32." "The most solemn time for worship is now the first day
of each week, called the Lord's Day, Rev. 1:10; 1Cor. 16:2." "Opposed
to the ordinance of the Lord's Day are all feast days ordained by men when they
are considered holy days like the Lord's Day."[43]
Shortly before his death, Ames prepared a
massive volume, A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in God's Worship (1633). This book was written as a response to earlier
publications by John Morton and John Burgess. Throughout his work, Ames
provides a detailed rebuttal of many of the Episcopal arguments related to
church polity.
In one place, Ames speaks of the
scriptural law of worship. Referring to Lev. 10:1, he states: "The sons of
Aaron are there condemned for bringing strange, or ordinary fire to God's
worship; as doing that which God had not commanded, and yet had not otherwise
forbidden, than by providing fire proper to his worship, and not appointing any
other to be used in the tabernacle. And this is the very plea which we make
against ceremonies of human institution, in God's worship." Then he notes
Jeremiah 7:31, and comments: "Seeing God under this title only condemns
that which the Jews did because he had not commanded it [to] them; therefore no
other reason need to be sought for the confutation of superstitions, than that
they are not by commandment from God."[44]
In a separate section "Concerning the
Lord's Day, Temples, and Ceremonial Festivals," Ames states:
"Concerning ceremonial festivals, of man's making, our practice cannot be
objected; because we observe none." In support of his position he cites
several prominent Protestant writers, including the remarks of Bucer on Matthew
12: "I would to God that every holy day whatsoever besides the Lord's day
were abolished. That zeal which brought them first in, was without all warrant
of the word, and merely followed corrupt reason, forsooth to drive out the holy
days of the pagans, as one nail drives out another. Those holy days have been
so tainted with superstitions that I wonder we tremble not at their very
names."[45]
Ames handles the objection, raised by the
instigation of Papists, that Christ's presence in Jerusalem during the feast,
noted in the tenth chapter of John, supports humanly-instituted ceremonies:
1. A Feast of Dedication is brought in as an
instance of human ceremony appropriated unto God's service, out of John 10. Now
what Feast of Dedication this was, and whether it were merely of human
institution: this has always been, and is still in great question....
2.
The Replier [John Burgess]
first observed, that this example is much alleged by Papists, against
Protestants for their ceremonies; and so indeed it has been always, from the
time of the Waldenses.
3.
The Defendant [John Morton] for
backing of this instance, added, that our Savior seems to approve that human
feast, by his presence, John 10. To which it was replied, that he seems only;
because we only read that he walked on Solomon's Porch, at that feast; which he
might do, without observing or approving of it. This is Junius' answer to
Bellarmine, alleging that Christ by his presence honored the feast: Christ
did not properly honor the feast, but the congregation of the faithful at the
feast. For Christ took all such occasions then, to wit, before those
solemnities were abolished, of sowing the seed of his gospel. Nor did Christ
aught that we read at those times, but preach in the Temple. And sure I am, that neither walking on the porch,
nor declaring that he was that Christ, belongs properly unto the solemnity of that feast. If he had
preached of dedications and consecrations, with allowance, that had been something.[46]
Shortly thereafter, Ames points to a
fundamental weakness in the arguments of his opponents. The advocates of
ceremonies have a bad habit of making allusions to obscure places in scripture,
without proving the fitness of these texts, or their correlation, to the
subject in question. We have already seen a glaring instance of this tactic in
the misuse of John 10. In another example, advocates of the Popish
ceremonies have cited the altar of Jordan (Josh. 22) as providing a
precedent for humanly-devised memorial ceremonies in the worship of God. This
spurious claim has survived among some advocates of Christmas in the twentieth
century.
"It is," says Ames, "their
fashion, to produce instances, without proof of their fitness, and so expect
from us that they should be disproved.... So it is here, about the altar of
Jordan; no demonstration is first made, how it agrees to the purpose; but we
are challenged to show how it disagrees."[47]
After uttering this protest, Ames makes several additional comments to
demonstrate the unsuitability of this text to support ceremonial additions to
the worship of God:
Let any man consider, whether they which ordinarily
resorted to the tabernacle, and altar of God, had need of a human altar, far removed from their
sight, to put them in mind that the Lord was God? And whether the two tribes
and a half, without the consent or knowledge of the chief priests, the chief
magistrates, the far greater part of the people, had power to appoint unto all
Israel a solemn significant ceremony for their common use?[48]
Ames continues his discussion by showing
that the altar of Jordan served largely in a civil capacity "to testify
that those tribes beyond Jordan belonged to the same people, and so had a right
to the same worship, with those of this side [of] Jordan: which is nothing to a
ceremony of stated and immediate use, in the special solemn worship of
God."[49]
Of course, John 10 and Joshua 22 say
nothing directly about Christmas. Its advocates must therefore take an
intermediate step, and argue that these texts bestow power unto the Church to
ordain modes of worship. That is precisely the manner in which these passages are
employed by Papal apologists; they claim these texts grant the Church broad
discretionary power to institute numerous ecclesiastical observances and
ceremonies in worship. Hence, these same passages are adduced by Papal and
Anglo-Catholic writers in order to justify numerous religious rites, such as
the dedication (or consecration) of sacred buildings, the observance of
festival days, the use of crosses, and prayers for the dead.
Obviously, the texts do not support the
constructions imposed upon them; for then they would contradict other clear
precepts found in scripture, where men are specifically prohibited from supple
menting the worship of God by means of human inventions (e.g. Deut 4:2; 12:1-4,
28-32; Lev. 10:1-3). Further, when modern Protestants adopt Jesuit arguments as
a pretext for observing Christmas, they are joining with the Papists in
asserting a concurrent authority of the Church with the scriptures. Thus the sola
scriptura rule of Protestant
theology is undermined, and Jesuits may smile that their tactics are meeting
with some measure of success.
When the Puritans came to power in
England, attention was repeatedly given to Christmas. In 1644, December 25 fell
upon a day previously scheduled for a monthly fast. The Parliament debated the
issue and resolved to observe the day with fasting and prayer, especially due
to the present circumstances of the nation.[50]
In June 1647, Parliament passed
legislation abolishing Christmas and other holidays:
Forasmuch as the feast of the nativity of Christ,
Easter, Whitsuntide, and other festivals, commonly called holy-days, have been
heretofore superstitiously used and observed; be it ordained, that the said
feasts, and all other festivals, commonly called holy-days, be no longer
observed as festivals; any law, statute, custom, constitution, or canon, to the
contrary in anywise not withstanding.[51]
The issue surfaced again in Parliament on
25 December 1656, as described in a record of the proceedings of that assembly.
One part of the day's discussions is as follows:
Colonel Mathews. The House is thin; much, I
believe, occasioned by observation of this day. I have a short Bill to prevent
the superstition for the future. I desire it to be read.
Mr.
Robinson. I could get no rest all night for the preparation of this foolish
day's solemnity. This renders us, in the eyes of the people to be profane. We
are, I doubt [fear], returning
to Popery.
Sir
William Strickland. It is a very fit time to offer the Bill, this day, to bear
your testimony against it, since the people observe it with more solemnity than
they do the Lord's-day.[52]
Many Americans look with great admiration
upon the Puritan settlers of this country. Imaginative souls conjure up images
of pious pilgrims gathered around a warm hearth, with chestnuts roasting on an
open flame. Many people would be quite surprised to know that December was just
another day among the pilgrim settlers who came over on the Mayflower.
In 1621, a mild conflict arose when some
newcomers had to be confronted over their use of the day:
On the day called Christmas Day, the Governor
called them out to work as was used. But the most part of this new company
excused themselves and said that it went against their consciences to work on
that day. So the Governor told them that if they made it a matter of
conscience, he would spare them till they were better informed; so he led away
the rest and left them. But when they came home at noon from their work, they
found them in the street at play, openly; some pitching the bar, and some at
stool-ball and such like sports. So he went to them and took away their
implements and told them that was against his conscience, that they should play
and others work. If they made the keeping of it a matter of devotion, let them
keep their houses; but there should be no gaming or reveling in the streets.
Since which time nothing hath been attempted that way, at least openly.[53]
When the Westminster Standards were drawn
up in the seventeenth century, the true worship of God took a central position
in the doctrines contained therein. True worship is directed to God alone, and
only in ways he has prescribed. Matters of worship to be observed the proper means or elements of worship are only those which God has ordained.
Treating the second commandment, the
Larger Catechism demonstrates the unlawfulness of adding to the worship of God.
The scriptures forbid "any religious worship not instituted by God
himself" and "corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking
from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition
from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good
intent, or any other pretence whatsoever" (Larger Catechism no. 109; cf.
Confession, chapter 21).
This scriptural teaching is applied in the
assembly's Directory for the Public Worship of God. A section particularly
pertinent to the discussion on Christmas is found in the Appendix,
"Touching Days and Places for Public Worship." It says:
There is no day commanded in scripture to be kept
holy under the gospel but the Lord's day, which is the Christian Sabbath.
Festival
days, vulgarly called Holy-days,
having no warrant in the word of God, are not to be continued.[54]
Founded upon scriptural principles, this
position against holidays is the official teaching of the standards. It should
be acknowledged by those who adhere to the Westminster formulations as their
doctrinal standards, since it is rooted in the Larger Catechism, as well as the
Directory for Worship. This position was reflected in the practice of the
Presbyterian Church in Scotland and America up through the nineteenth century.
The Westminster Standards, including the
Directory for Worship, were used in the United States
during the 1700s. The Directory for Worship
is commended as "agreeable in substance to the word of God" (Synod of
Philadelphia, 1729), and receives approbation as "the general plan of
worship and discipline" (Synod of New York, 1745).
After the two synods were reunited in
1758, they expressed their continued adherence to the Westminster formulations:
Both Synods having always approved and received the
Westminster Confession of Faith, and Larger and Shorter Catechisms, as an
orthodox and excellent system of doctrine, founded upon the word of God, we do
still receive the same confession of our faith, and also adhere to the plan of
worship, government, and discipline contained in the Westminster Directory,
strictly enjoining it on all our members and probationers for the ministry,
that they preach and teach according to the form of sound words in said
Confession and Catechisms, and avoid all errors contrary thereto.[55]
Later in the eighteenth century, a new
directory for worship was drafted, which was approved and adopted in 1788.[56] The new directory contains a chapter on
"Fasting, and the Observation of the Days of Thanksgiving." Fasting
and thanksgiving are treated more extensively than in the Appendix of the
original Directory for Worship. No mention is specifically made of holy days or
feasts; yet the chapter begins by stating, "There is no day under the
gospel commanded to be kept holy, except the Lord's day, which is the Christian
Sabbath." This statement is almost identical to the one previously cited
(from the Appendix of the Directory for Worship), and a natural application of
this principle would certainly exclude holidays. That application is precisely
the one made by Samuel Miller in his book on Presbyterianism (1835), in which he refers to this section of the
(American) Directory for Worship.
Samuel Miller (1769-1850) was Moderator of
the Presbyterian General Assembly in 1806. He was later named Professor of
Ecclesiastical History and Church Government at Princeton Seminary. In his
book, Miller has a chapter on "The Worship of the Presbyterian
Church," in which he mentions certain distinctives of Presbyterianism that
set it apart from other groups within Christendom. Among those distinctives are
the rejection of the following:
holy-days (holidays), godparents in baptism, confirmation, kneeling to receive
the Lord's Supper, and many other things which are practiced by Anglicans and
Papists.
Miller clearly explains why Presbyterians
reject the holy-days of Christmas and Easter. Initially, he notes the regulative
principle regarding worship: "the Scriptures being the only infallible
rule of faith and practice, no rite or ceremony ought to have a place in the
public worship of God, which is not warranted in Scripture, either by direct
precept or example, or by good and sufficient inference." Not only does
the celebration of non-biblical holidays lack a scriptural foundation, he says,
but the scriptures "positively discountenance it" (Col. 2:16; Gal.
4:9-11).[57]
Miller further points to the pagan and
Roman Catholic origins of such days as speaking "much against both their
obligation, and their edifying character." He also observes that "the
observance of uncommanded holy-days is ever found to interfere with the due sanctification
of the Lord's day. Adding to the appointment of God is superstition. And
superstition has ever been found unfriendly to genuine obedience." In his
closing remarks, Miller underscores his point that "the observance of
days, not appointed by God, has ever been found to exert an unfriendly
influence on the sanctification of that holy-day which God has appointed."[58]
Samuel Miller is a representative of
mainstream American Presbyterianism in the nineteenth century. His discussion
is based upon scriptural principles and flows from a natural application of the
principles in the Directory for Worship. His book on Presbyterianism was issued under the imprint of the General
Assembly's Board of Publication, and was reprinted numerous times.[59]
The position against ecclesiastical
holidays continued to be upheld in Scotland in the nineteenth century. Writing
in his book, The Church of Christ,
James Bannerman treats ecclesiastical holidays. He cites scriptural testimony,
and refers to the Appendix of the Directory for Worship. He reveals nothing
really startling, but his writing on the subject is forceful:
Though there were no other service rendered on the
Sabbath, and though our lips were silent and our tongues expressed no
articulate praise, the single act of keeping the first day of the week holy
would be an act of religious homage to the authority, and of solemn adoration
to the person, of Christ. The observance of that day of rest, as part of the
ordinary worship of the Church, is an act of adoration to Christ, as much as a
hymn in His praise would be an expression of adoration to Christ. And who does
not see, that upon the same principle the observance of holidays appointed by the
Church, as ordinary and stated parts of Divine worship, is an expression of
religious homage to man, who is the author of the appointment, an unlawful acknowledgment of human or
ecclesiastical authority in an act of worship. In keeping, after a religious
sort, a day that has no authority but man's, we are paying homage to that
authority; we are bowing down, in the very act of our observance of the day as
part of worship, not to Christ, who has not appointed it, but to the Church,
which has. We are keeping the season holy, not to God, but to man.[60]
We have seen that Presbyterian opposition
to Christmas is consistent, historical, and based upon solid scriptural
considerations. Yet, Presbyterians were not the only persons who maintained a
strong stand against Christmas and kindred corruptions of worship; there were
other Christians who held a similar convictions. For example, the famous
Baptist preacher Charles H. Spurgeon opened a sermon on 24 December 1871 with
the following words:
We have no superstitious regard for times and
seasons. Certainly we do not believe in the present ecclesiastical arrangement
called Christmas: first, because we do not believe in the mass at all, but
abhor it, whether it be said or sung in Latin or in English; and, secondly,
because we find no scriptural warrant whatever for observing any day as the
birthday of the Savior; and, consequently, its observance is a superstition,
because not of divine authority.[61]
Opposition to ecclesiastical holidays
remained in American Presbyterianism through the latter half of the nineteenth
century. Speaking of the South after the Civil War, one historian notes:
There was, however, no recognition of either
Christmas or Easter in any of the Protestant churches, except the Episcopal and
Lutheran. For a full generation after the Civil War the religious journals of
the South mentioned Christmas only to observe that there was no reason to believe
that Jesus was actually born on December 25; it was not recognized as a day of
any religious significance in the Presbyterian Church. "If the exact date
were known, or if some day (as December 25) had been agreed upon by common
consent in the absence of any certain knowledge, we would still object to the
observance of Christmas as a holy day. We object for many reasons, but at
present mention only this one that
experience has shown that the institution of holy days by human authority,
however pure the intention, has invariably led to the disregard of the Holy day
the Sabbath instituted by God." In the following decade
[the 1880s] this same journal sorrowed to see "a growing tendency [to
introduce church festivals into Protestant denominations], even in our own
branch of the church. True, it is by no means general, and has not been carried
very far, but it is enough to awaken our concern and to call for that least a
word of warning that the observance of Easter and Christmas is increasing amongst
us...."[62]
In 1899, the General Assembly of the pcus
was overtured to give a "pronounced and explicit deliverance" against
the recognition of "Christmas and Easter as religious days." Even at
this late date, the answer came back in a solid manner:
There is no warrant in Scripture for the observance
of Christmas and Easter as holydays, rather the contrary (see Gal. 4:9-11; Col.
2:16-21), and such observance is contrary to the principles of the Reformed
faith, conducive to will-worship, and not in harmony with the simplicity of the
Gospel of Jesus Christ.[63]
About the turn of the century, however,
various Christmas customs began appearing in Presbyterian churches. These came
through the introduction of frivolities like St. Nicholas in children's Sunday
school, the use of Christmas trees, and other festive elements. The observance
appears to have come from the lower levels of the church that is, from sentiments of people in the
congregations and worked its way
into sermons and more general acceptance.[64]
This process took time. Morton Smith notes
that the appearance of Easter and
Christmas into the official calendar of the Southern Presbyterian church
did not actually occur until the late 1940s and 1950s. Smith cites the
acceptance of the liturgical calendar as a mark of the growing apostasy in the
church. The change in attitude came with the growth of theological liberalism.
Liberalism undermines the scriptural foundations of worship; and liberals will
not feel threatened by holidays, because they have already abandoned the
regulative authority of scripture in matters of worship.[65]
It is also easy to see how conservatives
have allowed unscriptural religious observances to slip into their practice in
an unchallenged manner. When liberalism began to gain strength about the turn
of the century, general apologetics took priority over specific expositions on
the means of worship. Evangelicals had a tendency to cross denominational barriers
in order to fight the common enemy; and this tendency helped to blur important
denominational distinctives concerning worship.
Since the break with liberalism, most
conservative Presbyterians have given scant attention to a fruitful discussion
of worship. It is no wonder there is confusion. The observance of Christmas is
only part of a much larger problem.
Even with the avalanche of liberalism and
evangelical ecumenicity, Christmas has not gone unchallenged in twentieth
century Presbyterianism. In 1962, the Synod of the Free Presbyterian Church of
Scotland issued a "Statement of Differences Between the Free Presbyterian
Church of Scotland and the Other Presbyterian Churches." One point of
difference concerns the observance of holidays, which are tolerated in the
theologically liberal Church of Scotland.
The Free Presbyterian Church rejects the modern
custom becoming so prevalent in the Church of Scotland, of observing Christmas
and Easter. It regards the observance of these days as symptomatic of the trend
in the Church of Scotland towards closer relations with Episcopacy. At the time
of the Reformation in Scotland all these festivals were cast out of the Church
as things that were not only unnecessary but unscriptural.[66]
Based upon the foregoing presentation,
several conclusions may be drawn. These conclusions uniformly support a
complete repudiation of Christmas by those who wish to uphold a biblical view
of worship.
The scriptures, both by precept and
example, forbid the use of any form of worship which is not ordained by God. Since Christmas has no biblical warrant, it
should be rejected, even if there were no other reason to question it. The
reader who doubts this conclusion, should take a thoughtful look at scriptural
passages which demonstrate the unlawfulness of adding to the worship of God
through the innovations of man. (See Deut. 4:2; 12:29-32; Lev. 10:1-2; 1 Sam.
13:9-13; Col. 2:16.)
Christmas has brought an infusion of
paganism into the Church. This
kind of admixture was prohibited among God's people in both the Old and New
Testaments. The people of God must purge such corruptions from their midst.
"What agreement hath the temple of God with idols?... Come out from among
them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and
I will receive you" (2Cor. 6:16-17).
Christmas remains a monument of the
superstition of the Church of Rome.
If anyone doubts this proposition, he may turn on a television and watch the
Papal Mass on Christmas Eve; the Pope struts around the altar, chants the
prescribed words, and holds up the elements so they may be adored by a fawning
multitude. This is not a light matter. It is aggravated by a modern softness
toward Popery. Instead of looking for an Antichrist of the dispensational
model, Protestants had better reawaken to the dangers of the Pope, who is
"that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth
himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God. "[67] All remnants of Papal superstition must be
eradicated from the Church, including favorable references to the word
Christmas. The term Christmas
itself lends credibility to Popery (via the Popish Mass), and God demands that
his people purge even their language from the terminology of corrupt worship
(see Deut. 12:3; Ex. 23:13).
Christmas observance undermines the
sanctity of the Lord's day. The
yearning for festivals and celebrations among God's people is understandable.
Indeed, God instituted the Lord's day (and the Lord's Supper) to fulfill a need
which men have in this vital area. One reason why people are so enamored with
the festivity of holidays is that the Lord's day is often perceived only in
terms of what activities are prohibited on that day. If the Lord's day is
celebrated properly, with great joy, much of the desire for these other days
will dissipate. We should be overjoyed with the grand truths of redemption on
the day of Christ's resurrection: "This is the day which the Lord hath
made; we will rejoice and be glad in it" (Ps. 118:24). It is no mere
accident of history that holidays and the Lord's day are so often linked
together in discussions of this sort. Where one is prominent, the other fades
in significance. May the Lord's day be restored to its rightful place in
worship.
The institution of Christmas assumes an
erroneous view of Church power. God
has set apart the Lord's day as the time for regular worship and corporate
remembrance of him. Men do not have the right (or authority) to sanctify other
days for stated religious observances. Christmas-keepers are thereby granting
to the Church a co-equal authority with the scriptures, since they acknowledge
an ecclesiastical power to institute new ordinances of worship.
Further, Christmas constitutes a false
sacrament. The Old Testament
ceremonies and festivals were designed to typify Christ; they were visible
representations to foreshadow the Messiah who was to come, and to confirm the
promises of God. Now that Christ has come, the old festivities are not to be
observed. Instead, Christ has given to the Church the sacraments of baptism and
the Lord's Supper. The sacraments serve as a visible word to confirm the
spiritual realities of our redemption. To celebrate Christmas in a similar
manner as a visible reminder and
seal of the Incarnation is to allow
the holiday to usurp a role which rightly belongs to the sacraments.
Christmas is a source of great
misinformation and accessory abuses.
The present study has left this realm largely unexplored.[68]
Yet, it needs to be mentioned. Every year, Christmas is the occasion of serious
distortions of the facts of the Incarnation. Popular presentations frequently
twist the historical facts, as demonstrated by numerous portrayals of the wise
men in the manger.[69] By riding roughshod over the historical details of
Christ's birth, these popular presentations impugn the accuracy of the
scriptural record.
Moreover, during the Christmas season
numerous manger scenes and religious images are erected in public places,
church buildings and homes. This multiplication of graven images is a blatant
violation of the second commandment, which explicitly forbids making or using any pictorial representations of God. The second commandment
prohibits the making of any images of God, including "pictures of
Christ" in the manger.[70]
The accessory abuses of Christmas are so
commonly known, they need only be mentioned. The season is characterized by
crass commercialism in the media; the stimulation of mass covetousness,
especially among children; and general debauchery, as exhibited in many annual
Christmas parties.
A few final words remain for those who
claim to be Protestants, and especially Presbyterians. The Protestant Reformers
summoned us back to the scriptural law of worship which allows us to admit only
those institutions in worship that possess express scriptural warrant. To take
a stand in support of Christmas is a repudiation of this legacy of the
Reformation. It is a retreat from a hard-won point of orthodoxy.
A consistent application of Reformed and
Presbyterian principles of worship requires the repudiation of
Christmas. Answer 109 of the Westminster Larger Catechism forbids "any
wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself."[71] The issue is not a matter of indifference. Since
Christmas was not instituted by God, it should not be approved or tolerated in
the official practices of the Church. Ministers and church officers are not
being true to their ordination vows, if they encourage or tolerate Christmas
observance in their congregations.
Moreover, the obligation to protect our
families from corrupt worship resides with all heads of households. We must
strive to follow the example of Abraham, who received a commendation from the
Lord: "I know him, that he will command his children and his household
after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord" (Gen. 18:19).
At the outset of the Reformation in
Scotland, John Knox issued the following charge to the heads of households:
You are ordained of God to rule your own houses in
his true fear, and according to his Word. Within your own houses, I say, in
some cases, you are bishops and kings; your wife, children, servants, and
family are your bishopric and charge; of you it shall be required how carefully
and diligently you have always instructed them in God's true knowledge, how
that you have studied in them to plant virtue and repress vice.[72]
Of course, there are always those who
agree "in principle," but offer lame excuses for their reticence to
apply their beliefs to their actions. To such men, the words of Gillespie stand
as an appropriate exhortation:
Do not reckon it enough to bear within the
enclosure of your secret thoughts a certain dislike of the ceremonies and other
abuses now set afoot, except both by profession and action you evidence the
same, and show your faith by your fact. We are constrained to say to some among
you, with Elijah, "How long halt ye between two opinions?" and call
unto you with Moses, "Who is on the Lord's side? Who?" "Be not
deceived: God is not mocked." And, "No man can serve two masters.
"[73]
To all readers, this study is presented
with the hope that it will foster a desire to maintain the purity of scriptural
worship, in service to the living God. May the Church be liberated from the
corrupting influences which destroy the spiritual vitality of her worship; and
may a zealous concern for our worship flow from a desire to glorify the triune
God.
Footnotes for
Christmas: An Historical Survey
2. Samuel Miller, Presbyterianism
the Truly Primitive and Apostolical Constitution of the Church of Christ (Philadelphia:
Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1835), p. 76.
3. Ethel L. Urlin, Festivals,
Holy Days, and Saints' Days (London, 1915; rpt. Detroit: Gale Research Co.,
1979), p. 232.
4. James Taylor,
"Christmas," in The New International Dictionary of the Christian
Church (J. D. Douglas, ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), p. 223.
5. See Urlin, pp. 232-48; Taylor,
p. 223; Miller, pp. 76-77.
6. Bede, A History of the
English Church and People (Leo Sherley-Price and R. E. Latham, trans.;
Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1955, 1968), pp. 86-87.
8. Compact Edition of the
Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971), Vol. 1,
p. 408.
9. Philip E. Hughes, ed. and
trans., The Register of the Company of Pastors in the Time of Calvin(Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1966), p. 56.
11. Letters of John Calvin (Jules Bonnet,
ed.; rpt. New York: Burt Franklin, 1972), Vol. 2, pp. 288-89.
12. Calvin, Letters, Vol. ii, p. 289;
cf. George Gillespie, A Dispute Against the English-Popish Ceremonies,
Obtruded upon the Church of Scotland (Geneva, 1637), Part 1, p. 34.
13. Calvin, Tracts (1844; rpt. Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1983), Vol. 1, pp. 128-29.
14. Tracts, Vol. 1, pp.
131-32.
15. Tracts, Vol. 1, pp.
189-90.
16. For Calvin's views on
worship, be certain to consult the following: The Necessity of Reforming the
Church, in Tracts , Vol. 1, pp. 123-234; The True Method of Giving
Peace to Christendom and Reforming the Church, in Tracts, Vol. 3, pp.
240-358; On Shunning the Unlawful Rites of the Ungodly and Preserving the
Purity of the Christian Religion, in Tracts, Vol. 3, pp.
359-411. Other significant comments may be found in some of Calvin's letters:
to Somerset, Lord Protector of England (22 October 1548; Letters, Vol. 2, pp.
182-198, especially pp. 192-96); to King Edward VI (January 1551; Letters, Vol. 2, pp.
299-304).
17. John Knox's History of
the Reformation in Scotland (Ed. by William Croft Dickinson; New York:
Philosophical Library, 1950), Vol. 1, p. 91.
19. Knox's History, Vol. 2, p. 281.
Cf. John Knox, Works (David Laing, ed.; Edinburgh: James Thin, 1895),
Vol. ii, p. 190.
20. In Knox, Works, Vol. vi, pp.
547-48. The same position is expressed in the Second Scotch Confession (1580),
which rejects the "dedicating of kirks, altars, days."
21. Daniel Neal, The
History of the Puritans (London, 1837; rpt. Minneapolis: Klock &
Klock, 1979), Vol. 1, pp. 399-401, 449, 469-70.
22. Perth Assembly, pp. 66, 69.
23. Perth Assembly, pp. 71-74.
24. Perth Assembly, pp. 79-81.
25. Perth Assembly, p. 82.
26. Perth Assembly, pp. 83-84.
27. The Pastor and the
Prelate (First American Edition; Philadelphia: Samuel Agnew, 1844), p. 7.
28. The Pastor and the
Prelate, pp. 59-61.
29. Gillespie, Part 2, pp.
87, 118.
30. Gillespie, Part 2, pp.
118, 84; cf. 86.
32. Gillespie, Part 3, pp.
17-22.
34. Gillespie, Part 3, p. 8;
cf. 84, 112 ff.
36. Gillespie, Part 3, pp.
10, 13.
37. Gillespie, Part 3, p.
159.
39. A.F. Scott Pearson, Thomas
Cartwright and Elizabethan Puritanism. (Cambridge, 1925), p. 202.
40. Calderwood, The Pastor
and the Prelate, p. 90.
41. A. F. Scott Pearson, p.
207.
42. The Confutation of the
Rhemists' Translation, Glosses and Annotations (1618), by Thomas
Cartwright has been reprinted recently in a facsimile edition by Theatrum Orbis
Terrarum (Amsterdam, 1971). All citations in this study may be easily located,
since Cartwright's comments are arranged according to the books of the New
Testament.
43. William Ames, The
Marrow of Theology (John D. Eusden, ed. and trans.; Boston: Pilgrim
Press, 1968), pp. 279, 287, 300. 'That is a most empty distinction which some
people make to excuse their additions to worship: "Only corrupting and not
conserving additions are forbidden." For every addition as well as every
subtraction is a departure from the observance and keeping of the commandments
of God, and a corruption of them, Deut. 12:32.'
'Of the
same nature is the evasion which is made when it is said that only the addition
of essentials is forbidden, not accidentals. Although there are some
"accidents" or adjuncts in worship, there is no worship which may be
called accidental, because all worship has in it its own essence. Furthermore,
as the least commandments of God even to the jots and tittles are to be
observed religiously, Matt. 5:18,19, so additions that seem very small are for
the same reason rejected. Last, Moses seals even those laws of place and manner
of divine worship, of abstinence from blood, and the like (which are certainly
accidental to worship), with the caution not to add to or take away from them,
Deut. 12:32.' (Ames, Marrow, p. 280.)
44. A Fresh Suit Against
Human Ceremonies in God's Worship (1633; rpt. Gregg International Publishers, Ltd.,
1971), Second Part, pp. 24-25.
45. Ames, Fresh Suit, pp. 359-60.
46. Ames, Fresh Suit, p. 320.
47. Ames, Fresh Suit, p. 322.
48. Ames, Fresh Suit, p. 325.
49. Ames, Fresh Suit, p. 326.
52. John Towill Rutt, ed., Diary
of Thomas Burton, Esq.: Member in the Parliament of Oilver and Richard
Cromwell, from 1656 to 1659 (rpt. New York: Johnson Reprint Corp., 1964), Vol.
1, p. 229.
53. William Bradford, Of
Plymouth Plantation (Samuel Eliot Morison, ed.; New York: Alfred
Knopf, 1979), p. 97.
54. The Appendix goes on to
acknowledge the lawfulness of special days for fasting and thanksgiving,
according to God's providence a teaching which certainly has scriptural
sanction.
55. Records of the
Presbyterian Church in the United States of Amercia: Embracing the Minutes of
the General Presbytery and General Synod 1706-1788 (Philadelphia, 1904;
rpt. New York: Arno Press, 1969), pp. 95, 233, 286.
56. Records, p. 547.
59. Miller's book on Presbyterianism was reprinted in
1837, 1840, 1842, 1847, and 1848; it was translated into Latin in 1855. Judging
from the publication data, the book appears to have been reissued more than any
other work by this eminent Presbyterian.
60. James Bannerman, The
Church of Christ (1869; rpt. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth), Vol. 1,
p. 416.
61. C. H. Spurgeon, Metropolitan
Tabernacle Pulpit (1871; rpt. Pasadena, Texas: Pilgrim
Publications), p. 697.
62. Ernest Trice Thompson, Presbyterians
in the South (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1973), Vol. 2, p. 434.
Thompson does not mention the Methodists, although they may be classified with
their Anglican roots. Thompson's citations are from the Southern
Presbyterian (December 22, 1870; January 3, 1884).
63. Cited in Morton H. Smith,
How is the Gold Become Dim (Jackson, Mississippi: Steering Committee for a
Continuing Presbyterian Church, etc., 1973), p. 98.
66. History of the Free
Presbyterian Church of Scotland (1893-1970) (Compiled by a Committee Appointed by
the Synod of the Free Presbyterian Church; Inverness: Publications Committee,
Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, n.d.), p. 383.
67. Original wording of the
Westminster Confession, 25:6.
68. For a good discussion of
this point, consult Michael Schneider, Is Christmas Christian? (above).
69. Note Luke 2:11. By the
time the wise men arrived, Jesus and his family were residing in a house.
70. On the issue of
"pictures of Jesus," and other graven images, the reader may consult
the following: the Westminster Larger Catechism, no. 109; Heidelberg Catechism,
questions 96-98; Peter Barnes, Seeing Jesus: The Case Against Pictures of
Our Lord Jesus Christ (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1990); John Calvin, Institutes
of the Christian Religion (trans. by Ford Lewis Battles; Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1960), pp. 99-116; William Cunningham, Historical
Theology (1862; rpt. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1979),
Vol. 1, pp. 359-89; R. L. Dabney, Lectures in Systematic Theology (1878; rpt. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1972), pp. 361-64.
72. John Knox, Works, Vol. 4, p. 137.
73. 1 Kings 18:21; Exodus
32:26; Gal. 6:7; Matt. 6:24; from section 11 of the opening
"Epistle," in Gillespie's Dispute
Against the English-Popish Ceremonies.
Go to
Christmas-Keeping and the Reformed Faith.
Copyright ©1995 by Kevin Reed
CHIRSTMASS, REFORMED ICONOCLASM, THE SCRIPTURAL LAW
OF WORSHIP & WE NEED A NEW WAR AGAINST THE IDOLS
Christmass Condemned By Christ 1/3 by Greg Price
(Puritan Worship Series)
Christmass Condemned By Christ 2/3 by Greg Price
(Puritan Worship Series)
Christmass Condemned By Christ 3/3 by Greg Price
(Puritan Worship Series)
Christmas Is Part Of Roman Catholic
(Papacy/Antichrist) Missionary Strategy And High-Handed Idolatry
DO DEMONS LOVE CHRISTMAS? - Mather, Calvin's
Geneva, the Westminster Assembly, American Puritans ...
CHRISTMAS: FREE BOOKS, MP3s & Videos By The
Best Reformers, Puritans and Covenanters
History of Holy Days (7/7) The Christian
Sabbath/Lord's Day, Christmas, Easter,...