Against Pagan and Roman Catholic Holy-days
(Holidays) Like Christmas, Easter, etc. (free book, MP3s and videos) - Holy Days (Lord's Day, Christmas, Easter, etc.) - Puritan
Hard Drive - History of
Holy Days (7/7) The Christian Sabbath/Lord's Day, Christmas, Easter by Dr.
Steven Dilday
Chapter 1
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
1 Thess. 5:21
Every
man's work shall be made manifest and the fire shall try every man's work of
what sort it is.
1 Cor. 3:13
In the 15 December 1994 Standard
Bearer, the denominational
magazine of the Protestant Reformed Churches, a letter was submitted to the editor, requesting
a defense of Christmas-keeping. A response was provided by Prof. David J. Engelsma (hereafter
referred to as Prof.E. for brevity's sake). The debate continued in the 15
March 1995 issue, with another letter and another response by Prof.E. That the
defense provided has to it a degree of credibility is undeniable. But
credibility and truthfulness are not the same. In reality, Prof.E.'s arguments
are both erroneous in themselves, and based upon principles harmful to the
liberty of Christ's church, the purity of God's instituted worship, and the
kingly prerogatives of Christ. Furthermore, in presenting his arguments,
Prof.E. has made misrepresentations of important reformed figures, doctrines
and events. The Standard Bearer
is a magazine of significant circulation in the reformed community, and this
controversy involves many truths of no small importance. Left unanswered, the
professor's defense of Christmas is likely both to mislead many in that
community, and to perpetuate the darkness and confusion which have over taken
the church of Christ today with regard to those truths. For these and other
reasons, we believe that a public, thorough reply to Prof.E.'s defense is
necessary. Providing that reply is the purpose of this work. It is not intended
that this be an exhaustive treatment of all the issues involved in the debate.
Our intent is to confine the discussion to Prof.E.'s actual arguments,
demonstrating their weakness from scripture and the reformed creeds.
To the reader we offer this additional
word of exhortation. Rational discussion of the Christmas question is usually
undermined by the emotion and prejudice brought to the dialogue. We beseech you
to put away all such emotional excess at the outset. Come with humility of
mind, and a readiness to receive the word of God. Come with a mind enquiring
after truth alone. Submit the arguments on both sides to the test of scripture, and receive only
those principles which have a sure foundation in the word, discarding the rest
as hay and stubble fit for burning. Surely this is a fair request by any
righteous standard. May the Lord bless you with all wisdom and discernment to
the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Chapter 2
And they took the bullock which was given them,
and they dressed it, and called on the name of Baal from morning even until
noon, saying, O Baal, hear us. But there was no voice, nor any that answered.
1 Kings 18:26
Many readers, not having access to
Prof.E.'s defense of Christmas-keeping in its original publication, might not
be able to read his arguments for themselves. For this reason, we offer here
the entire text of Prof.E.'s statements, adding only reference numbers for ease
of later citation.
[1] I have not seen the booklet that you
mention.[2]
[2] The Protestant Reformed Churches'
practice of observing Christmas is a long and honorable tradition in the
Reformed Churches that trace their spiritual descent to the Synod of Dordt. [3]
Article 67 of the venerable Church Order of Dordt (1618/1619) requires that the
Reformed churches "shall observe in addition to the Sunday also
Christmas...."
[4] This observance consists of a public
worship service on December 25. [5] The elements of this service are the same
as those that make up the congregation's worship on the Sabbath. [6] The
minister preaches on some aspect of the birth of Christ, usually, and
preferably, the history in the gospels. [7] The congregation hears the blessed
gospel of the incarnation and praises God with appropriate psalms in
congregational singing.
[8] Objection against Dordt in this
provision and practice is invariably in terms of the "regulative
principle" of worship: observance of Christmas is not prescribed in
Scripture.
[9] But this is a misunderstanding of the
"regulative principle." [10] This is evident from the fact that Dordt
permitted, indeed prescribed, observance of Christmas even though the great
Reformed synod was committed to the "regulative principle" as laid
down in Question 96 of the Heidelberg Catechism. [11] Dordt saw no conflict
between the requirement of the second commandment that we worship God only in
the "way ... He has commanded in His Word" and the observance of
Christmas at a Reformed worship service. [12] The fathers of Dordt saw no
conflict because there is none.
[13] The "regulative principle"
requires that the elements of public worship the "how" of worship
be those, and those only, that God prescribes in His Word, whether the public
worship be on the Lord's Day or on some special occasion. [14] The
"regulative principle" certainly does not forbid the church ever to
gather for worship on another day than Sunday or on another occasion than the
regular remembrance of Christ's resurrection on the first day of the week.
[15] The Heidelberg Catechism explains the
fourth commandment as requiring that "I, especially on the sabbath diligently frequent the church of
God." [16] The Catechism does not say, "exclusively on the
sabbath."
[17] The Westminster Assembly likewise allowed
for the observance of days of public fasting and of public thanksgiving in
addition to the observance of the sabbath (see "The Directory for the
Public Worship of God").
[18] Calvin
looked askance at the celebration of Christmas in his day because of the
corrupting of that celebration by Roman Catholicism (see I. VanDellen and M.
Monsma, The Church Order Commentary, Zondervan, 1941, p. 273). [19] He did not, however, flatly forbid it
as a transgression of the second commandment. [20] As I noted in my review of
Wulfert de Greef's The Writings of John Calvin: An Introductory Guide
(Baker, 1993), Calvin went along with the Geneva church's observance of the
four great feast days that did not fall on a Sunday, including Christmas. [21]
When the Council decided to abolish these observances, Calvin wrote a
correspondent that, if he had been asked for advice, he would not have
supported this decision (see de Greef, The Writings of John Calvin, p. 57; my review of this book appeared in the
September 29, 1994 issue of the Standard Bearer).
[22] This is the kind of wisdom that we
defenders of the "regulative principle" must demonstrate in our
application of the principle, lest we fall into a rigid, stifling (and
divisive) legalism and, thus, imperil the principle itself.
[1] The term "Christmas,"
according to Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, derives from a word meaning "Christ's
mass." [2] From this, nothing follows concerning use of the word by the
true church. [3] According to Baker's Dictionary of Christian Ethics (ed. Carl F. H. Henry, Baker, 1973), the word
"Sunday" is "derived from pagan sources and denotes the day
devoted to the sun" (p. 653). [4] This does not rule out Christians
meeting for worship on this day or using the word to refer to the day on which
they engage in public worship.
[5] There is no basis in Scripture for the
Reformed churches' commemoration of Christ's birth on December 25. [6] Neither
is there basis in Scripture for their observing a Day of Prayer on the second
Wednesday of March annually. [7] Nor is there such basis in Scripture for
services of public worship in observance of "notable judgments,"
"some special blessing," and "days of public thanksgiving,"
as allowed by the Westminster Assembly's "Directory for the Public Worship
of God" and as actually held by Presbyterian churches in the Scottish
tradition.
[8] The Reformed and Presbyterian churches
have the liberty to observe these special occasions by worship services on
other days than the Lord's Day. [9] This is really our liberty. It is our
liberty in Christ Jesus. [10] The Belgic Confession asserts this liberty in
general terms: "it is useful and beneficial that those who are rulers of
the church institute and establish certain ordinances among themselves for
maintaining the body of the church" (Art 32). [11] The Second Helvetic
Confession of 1566, in its day a Reformation creed of standing, distribution,
and influence, expresses this liberty in specific terms:
[12] Moreover, if in Christian liberty the churches
religiously celebrate the memory of the Lord's nativity, circumcision, passion,
resurrection, and the ascension into heaven, and the sending of the Holy Spirit
upon the disciples, we approve of it highly (Chapter 24, in Reformed
Confessions of the 16th Century,
ed. Arthur C. Cochrane, Westminster, 1966).
[13] That which churches maintaining the
"regulative principle" do not have liberty to do is to introduce into the worship service itself,
whether on the Lord's Day or on a special occasion, any other element of
worship besides those commanded by Scripture. [14] As the Heidelberg Catechism
explains, God requires in the second commandment that we not worship Him
"in any other way than He has commanded in His Word" (Q. 96).
[15] The "regulative principle"
of public worship does not care on what day, in addition to Sunday, the church
may gather for public worship, or that the occasion may be celebrating the
birth of Christ or some notable judgment. [16] The concern of the
"regulative principle" is that when the church does gather for
worship she worships God only as He has commanded in His Word; using the
sacraments; publicly calling upon the Lord (which includes congregational
singing of the Psalms); contributing to the relief of the poor; and doing all
in spirit and in truth (see Heid. Cat., Q. 103; John 4:24).
[17] The Reformed churches that stand in
the tradition of Dordt do not accuse, and never have accused, their
Presbyterian brothers and sisters who stand in the tradition of Westminster of
any wrong-doing as regards their worship. [18] It is perfectly alright in our
judgment that the Scottish Presbyterians do not observe Christmas by a public
worship service on December 25, or any other date. [19] We make no effort to
bind their consciences.
[20] When, on the other hand, our
Presbyterian brothers and sisters accuse the Reformed churches standing in the
tradition of Dordt of transgressing the second commandment, because they do
observe Christmas, we warn them, "Beware, lest in applying the good
principle you 'fall into a rigid, stifling (and divisive) legalism, and, thus,
imperil the principle itself.'" [21] This was, and is, my warning, not to
those who choose not to observe Christmas, but to those who are inclined to
charge Article 67 of the Church Order of Dordt, and the Reformed believers
adhering to it, with violation of the second commandment.
[22] You inform us what you would do, should
any minister call for the observance of Christmas: flatly refuse to attend.
[23] It may be profitable to you to know
what I would do, if the situation were reversed. [24] If the consistory decided
to drop the observance of Christmas by a special worship service on December
25, I would acquiesce, although regretting the unnecessary giving up of a
delightful, edifying service. [25] If the consistory gave as its reason, that
it desired to avoid practical dangers, e.g., the secular corruption of Christmas
or the threat of Roman Catholicism, I would still acquiesce, although believing
the thinking of the consistory to be faulty.
[26] But if the consistory gave as its
reason for dropping the observance of Christmas that the observance of
Christmas is per se violation
of the second commandment, I would move heaven and earth to restore the
observance and, certainly, to attend an observance myself.
[27] It is a precious principle with us
Reformed of Dordt not to allow our liberty in Christ to be infringed.
[These comments are Prof.E.'s defense of
Christmas-keeping, as published in the Standard Bearer.]
Chapter 3
If antiquity is used as an argument (and those
who are overly addicted to custom and traditional ways of acting use antiquity
boldly, as a shield to hide all their corruptions), it is easy to refute it.
John Calvin[1]
So
these nations feared the Lord, and served their graven images, both their
children, and their children's children: as did their fathers, so do they unto
this day.
2 Kings 17:41
Prof.E. begins his defense with these
words, "The Protestant Reformed Churches' practice of observing Christmas
is a long and honorable tradition" (I:2; cf. II:5). That it is ancient, we
do not deny. That it is honorable is another thing altogether. But of the
greatest import is, that at the very outset, Prof.E. has admitted that the
foundation for his practice is to be located in tradition, and tradition only.
How the antiquity or supposed honorableness of Christmas-keeping is related to
establishing the lawfulness of the practice, he does not tell us. In fact, such
arguments serve only an emotional purpose, and distract from the real issues.
And just what is an "honorable
tradition"? What are the biblical criteria by which we can identify one? Prof.E.'s assertion? Personal
whim? The Pope's decree? And what place ought tradition to have among us? Is it
a rule of our practice? Does tradition establish what is right in the service
of God, and true religion?
The Pharisees had a tradition of
ceremonially washing their hands before meals. Christ told them that they
worshipped God in vain, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men (Matt
15:9; Mark 7:7). One reformed authority sums up Jesus' attitude towards extra-biblical
tradition with these words, "There was a strong tradition within the
covenant community of that day that consisted of man-made commandments by which
the people were to serve God. There was a holding of the traditions that
esteemed those laws with the most intense, religious zeal.... Jesus pitilessly
condemned this holding of the traditions as hypocrisy."[2] But wait, this reformed authority is none other
than Prof.E. himself! In fact,
Prof.E. tells us in this same article that while in New Testament times
"the traditions were taught the congregation both by word and by writing,
today, after the completion of the New Testament canon, the traditions are the
content of the Scriptures, and nothing besides."[3]
In 1991, Prof.E. evidently saw clearly
that the issue of tradition is really the issue of the authority of scripture.
But now he will have us accept extra-biblical tradition as a suitable companion
for scripture in ordering the worship of the church. Has Prof.E. left Geneva
for a Canterbury pilgrimage? When Prof.E. can locate Christmas-keeping in
"the content of the scriptures, and nothing besides," then we will
consider his "honorable tradition." Until that time we will hold fast
to the traditions of the word of God, which are far more ancient, and unquestionably more honorable.
Prof.E. continues with an argument that
can essentially be reduced to the following syllogism (I:3-12):
1. The Synod of Dordt held to the regulative
principle.
2.
The Synod of Dordt enjoined the observation of Christmas.
ERGO,
There is no conflict between Christmas-keeping and the regulative principle.
The most obvious answer to this argument
is, that it is really no argument at all. All that it can establish is, that in
the eyes of the Synod of Dordt in 1618 there was no conflict between these two
things. But is it not a basic scriptural and confessional principle that synods
and councils can and do err, and that therefore their declarations are to be
tried by the rule of scripture?[4] That the Synod of
Dordt considered these two doctrines consistent is no proof of their being so, unless councils are infallible,
in which case we had all better pack for the next flight to Constantinople. The
fact is, the synod may have been inconsistent. Their consistency on the debated
point is an assertion itself requiring proof, not an argument! This is the
notorious fallacy known as "begging the question."
Interestingly, Prof.E. is inconsistent with himself here. It is well known that reformed
theologians have taught that marriage is a permanent bond broken only by death.
But they have also taught (as have some reformed councils) that divorce and
remarriage are lawful under certain circumstances. Upon Prof.E.'s logic, these
two propositions must therefore be consistent with one another. Prof.E. has
written elsewhere, however, that the reformed, in tolerating remarriage, are
inconsistent with their view of marriage as a bond breakable only by death, and
that we should therefore repudiate such a tolerance as unscriptural.[5] Yet, when it comes to Christmas-keeping, evidently
the rules of argument change. The bare holding of two seemingly opposed things
by a reformed creed or theologian now functions as a substantial proof of the
consistency of those things with one another. This is undeniably a double
standard. Or perhaps the standard is truly uniform: the denominational status quo.
This argument from Prof.E. is really quite
weightless. As further proof, consider this alternate syllogism of our own
devising:
1. The Westminster Assembly (also a reformed synod)
held to the regulative principle.
2.
The Westminster Assembly banned Christmas-keeping.
ERGO,
(on Prof.E.'s own logic) Christmas-keeping and the regulative principle are
inconsistent and irreconcilable.
Where are we now? Two reformed synods.
Both espouse the regulative principle. One finds holy days repugnant to the
regulative principle and bans them; one evidently does not find them repugnant
and prescribes their observance. Where does that leave us? Exactly nowhere. The
question cannot be settled by
this sort of argument. Obviously it requires that we take the determinations of
the two synods and consult some further authority to decide between the two,
that authority being the scriptures.[6]
One synod is obviously wrong, as the two views are mutually exclusive. It is a
non-defense simply to assert what one or the other synod held. And the situation
is actually worse than even this suggests. In 1574, a synod of the Belgic
churches meeting at Dordt forbade the observation of Christmas. This was
repeated again in 1578.[7] Why is the decision of 1618 to be received as true
while the earlier decisions are rejected as false. Was revelation progressing?[8]
Christmas-keeping can only be defended on
the grounds of its being either a necessity or a liberty. If it is defended as a necessity, we ask "Why?" Is it a
necessity by the command of the word of God? That would be nonsense to assert,
and Prof.E. himself denies any such origin for the practice (I:8; II:5). The
only other defense would be that it is a necessity by the prescription of the synod.
But on what basis? By what authority? It cannot be the authority of a synod
speaking forth the declaration of scripture, since Christmas is not to be found
there. It must then be an innate authority within synods, or at least, within
this particular synod. But when did the synod gain this authority? Did Christ
give it to them? Where in scripture did Christ delegate to synods a power and
authority to require the observation of man-invented holy days? When did he
bestow it upon them? Some "long" and "honorable" time ago?
And if Christ did not delegate to them this power, where did they get it? If
Christmas-keeping is a necessity,
it is so due to the declaration of one synod speaking apart from the word of
God, contradicting its earlier judgment, exercising an innate synodical
authority never delegated to it by Jesus Christ anywhere, ever.
But Prof.E. professes to believe in
Christmas-keeping as a matter of liberty (II:8-9). This admission will only further overturn his argument. If
Christmas-keeping is a matter of liberty, as Prof.E. would have it, then it is
also a matter of liberty not to
keep Christmas, (which he also admits) (II:18). And if it is a Bible liberty
not to keep Christmas, then it must be a liberty for all Christians and churches. But there is a problem.
The Synod has denied them this liberty. The Synod did not say that they might
keep Christmas if they so wished,
but that "The Churches shall observe, in addition to Sunday, also Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, with
the following day."[9] If Christmas-keeping is allowed as a liberty, then
the Synod has given a binding prescription in a matter of liberty. We simply ask again, where and when did any
synod obtain authority to prescribe what is a self-confessed matter of liberty?
The confessions deny them this right. "[W]e reject all human inventions,
and all laws, which man would introduce into the worship of God, thereby to
bind and compel the conscience in any manner whatever."[10] "God alone is Lord of the conscience, and
hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are in any
thing contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith or worship."[11] The scriptures likewise deny them this right
(Matt. 15:9; Mark 7:8,9,13; Acts 4:19, 5:29). So when exactly did the Synod obtain the authority to bind the church
to a religious observation apart from the law of God? How is this any different
from banning meat on Friday, or requiring St. Cuthbert's day? If
Christmas-keeping is a matter of liberty, which churches and Christians may
freely use or disuse, then Synods have gained an independent, innate, invisibly
delegated authority (contrary to the express declaration of scripture and the
Reformed confessions), to bind consciences in matters of liberty, and require
religious observances found nowhere in all the Bible.
Prof.E. here confuses an issue of extreme
importance. What Prof.E. teaches is not a liberty held by individual Christians, but a synodical liberty, or consistorial liberty. According to Prof.E., it is the
"liberty" of the government of the church to require
Christmas-keeping (II:8-13). Did it never occur to Prof.E. that in granting
this "liberty" to the government of the church, he denies it to all
her subjects? What Prof.E. is really saying is that because Christmas is a
supposed matter of liberty, therefore its observance may be imposed on all by
the pastors and elders of the church. But what sort of liberty is this? This is
a liberty of total bondage to the doctrines and commandments of men. This is
the very opposite of the biblical and confessional doctrine of Christian
liberty.[12] If it is our liberty not to observe Christmas, no
pastor, no elder, no synod, and no council may impose it upon us, or upon any
others of God's children! Those things the Bible grants as Christian liberties
are liberties to every child of
God; if their governmental representatives attempt to restrict that true
liberty, those governors act wickedly, and ought to be rebuked and opposed
(Col. 2:20-23; Gal. 2:4-5, 5:1; Acts 4:19; Isa. 8:20). Prof.E.'s arguments
would justify the Pharisees in teaching for doctrines the commandments of men
because they were the government of the church, and therefore had the right to
do so. After all, much of what the Pharisees required of men were merely additions to the word of God, not contradictions. They were
things "beside" the word of God, not things "contrary to his
word"[13] (e.g. handwashing or baptizing of cups and pots)
(Matt. 15:1-3; Mark 7:3-4).
Beloved reader, we cannot warn you with
enough vigor or emphasis that this construction created by Prof.E. is a
monstrous renewal of the doctrines of popery and Phariseeism. It is in this
very way that the man of sin first began and then strengthened his dominion
over the lives and consciences of men ( 1 Tim. 4:1-3). It is this very doctrine
that built the edifices first of apostate Jerusalem and then of anti-Christian
Rome. For your soul's sake, beware.[14]
To defend this ecclesiastical tyranny,
Prof.E. quotes a portion of Article 32 of the Belgic Confession: "it is
useful and beneficial that those who are rulers of the church institute and
establish certain ordinances among them for maintaining the body of the
church" (II:10). Prof.E. fails to reproduce the extremely relevant sentences that follow. "Yet they
ought studiously to take care, that they do not depart from those things which
Christ, our only Master, hath instituted. And therefore we reject all human
inventions and all laws which man would introduce into the worship of God,
thereby to bind and compel the conscience in any matter whatever. Therefore we admit
only of that which tends to nourish and preserve concord, and unity, and to
keep all men in obedience to God." Perhaps someone has been tampering with
the professor's copy of the confession. Perhaps he accidentally picked up an
Anglo-Lutheran version. Perhaps.
There is no doubt but this article gives
the government of the church the power to "establish certain
ordinances." But the same article also regulates those ordinances very carefully, by setting
conditions they must meet. We ask Prof.E., does Christmas "maintain the
body of the church"? Is not Christmas a "departure from those things
which Christ, our only Master, hath instituted"? Is it not a human
invention and law introduced by man into the worship of God? Does Christmas tend
to "nourish and preserve concord and unity"? Does Christmas help to
"keep all men in obedience to God"? Christmas meets none of the conditions set forth by the confession. In
fact, it is a letter-perfect violation of several of them. Prof.E. imagines
that he has found in this article a general assertion of Christian liberty that
allows the imposition of festival days (II:8-10); instead he has found a
general condemnation of the practice. And how consistent with honest argument
such partial, manipulative quoting is; and what reflection such a practice
makes upon the character and cause of its author, we leave to the judgment of
the reader.
Prof.E. finds his magic bullet in the
Second Helvetic Confession of 1566, which expressly mentions Christian liberty
and the observation of festival days in the same breath (II:11-12). But once
again he merely quotes the confession as the "end all-be all" of the
argument, just as he cited the Synod of Dordt before (I:3). He does not tell us
that the Scottish church, in reviewing this confession and lending their
approval to it, expressly mentioned and repudiated the very passage which he
cites.[15]
This brings us back to our earlier problem
of two opposing reformed synods. And once again, the answer can only be found
by comparing the decrees of those councils to the word of God. Prof.E. also
fails to note that this confession does not prescribe the observance of the festival days, but merely allows individual congregations to observe them if they
so desire. Unwittingly, Prof.E. condemns his argument by this citation, rather
than establishing it. The Second Helvetic Confession counts festival days to be
a Christian liberty, and so allows their observance. This is a consistent,
though erroneous position. But Prof.E. is not defending the allowance of festival days by church government as a matter
of liberty; he is defending their prescription by church government as a matter of liberty. There
is a vast gulf between these two things, one evidently recognized by the authors
of the Second Helvetic Confession. It is a distinction that appears to be lost
upon Prof.E. Thus, the Second Helvetic Confession fails to establish anything
to Prof.E.'s purposes.
The role of tradition in the faith of the
church, the nature of Christian liberty, the scope of the authority of
ecclesiastical assemblies these are
all doctrines of central importance to the health of Christ's church. We are in
grave danger when just one of
these truths is distorted or lost. Prof.E. has corrupted all three in his
defense of Christmas. But perhaps there is yet some hope. To conclude this
chapter, we can offer no sounder statement than one made by Prof.E. himself:
"The [reformed] tradition, precious as it is to us, may not be allowed to
override the Scriptures, but the Scriptures test, condemn, and purify the
tradition. That the Reformed church and believer may test and reject certain
aspects of their own tradition according to the standard of Holy Scripture is
the testimony of the Reformed creed."[16]
Now if only we could persuade him to take his own medicine.
Chapter 4
God not only rejects all invented manners of
worship but strongly abominates them. It must be said, in fact, that as soon as
men seek to worship God by their own judgment, whatever they produce is foul
profanation.
John Calvin[1]
What
thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor
diminish from it.
Deut. 12:32
Continuing his defense, Prof.E. introduces
a tether by which he attempts to attach his earlier argument to the earth
before it has a chance to float away. Faced with the charge of inconsistency in
the Synod of Dordt, he must somehow reconcile the regulative principle and
Christmas-keeping. To accomplish this formidable task, he simply offers a
definition for the regulative principle which allows Christmas-keeping. He writes, 'The
"regulative principle" requires that the elements of public worship the "how" of worship be those, and those only, that God prescribes in
His Word, whether the public worship be on the Lord's Day or on some special
occasion' (I:13). This argument also appears in a more extensive form in his
second response (II:13-16). Under Prof.E.'s construction, the regulative
principle is concerned with establishing the elements of worship only. That is, it establishes that in
worship we are to have the elements of the preaching of the word, the singing
of praises, prayer, the Lord's Supper, baptism, etc. This is the sole scope of
the regulative principle. As the day of worship is not properly considered an element of worship, the
regulative principle is not relevant, and certainly cannot be used as a means
by which to condemn the keeping of festival days such as Christmas. This is the
essence of his argument, insofar as it relates to the regulative principle.
The cardinal problem with this
construction is that Prof.E. offers no proof that this is the reformed doctrine of the regulative principle,
or that the confessions, when they establish the regulative principle, refer to
only the broad elements of worship. Nor does he cite any scripture to this
effect. We are evidently to accept this view of the regulative principle based
upon his assertion alone.[2] But Prof.E.'s view of the regulative principle is
certainly not the historic
reformed view. The confessions do not limit the principle in any such fashion.
The Heidelberg Catechism states, as the meaning of the second commandment, that
we must "in no wise worship him [God] in any other way than he has
commanded in his word."[3] This passage speaks
to the worship of God in general, and extensively. There is absolutely nothing
here which limits the principle espoused to the broad elements of worship.
Instead, the Catechism uses language that is intentionally comprehensive. It
speaks of any way of worship
that God has not commanded. The Belgic Confession states that "the whole
manner of worship, which God requires of us, is written [in the
scriptures]"[4] and also "reject[s] all human inventions, and
all laws, which man would introduce into the worship of God."[5] The reader who takes these statements at face
value is not likely to conclude that they are only referring to the broad
elements of worship.
Perhaps the most refined statement of the
regulative principle is contained in the Westminster Standards. The language
here is precise and unmistakable. Consider the following passages:
Q. 3. What is the word of God?
A.
The holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the word of God, the only
rule of faith and obedience.[6]
Good
works are only such as God hath commanded in his holy word, and not such as,
without the warrant thereof, are devised by men out of blind zeal, or upon any
pretence of good intention.[7]
God
alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and
commandments of men, which are in any thing contrary to his Word; or beside it,
if matters of faith or worship.[8]
[T]he
acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so
limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to
the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any
visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in his holy word."[9]
Q.
109 What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?
A.
The sins forbidden are all devising, counselling, commanding, using, and any
wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; all
superstitious devices, 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 pretence whatsoever.[10]
The
whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's
salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by
good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which
nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit,
or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that there are some
circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church,
common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of
nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word,
which are always to be observed.[11]
According to the Westminster Standards,
the word of God is the rule of
faith and the only source by
which to know what works are pleasing to God. When this basic principle (the
sufficiency, authority and perfection of scripture) is applied to the worship
of God, it follows that all worship must be based on the revealed will of God,
and offered according to his institution. Furthermore, in matters of faith and
worship, we are freed by true Christian liberty not only from things explicitly
contrary to the word, but also from things merely "beside" the word.
That is, the silence of
scripture cannot be used to justify an innovation in worship, even if that
innovation is not explicitly contrary to any commandment.
How do we identify the institutions of worship from
scripture? From direct precept or institution, and also by deduction from good
and necessary consequence. A good and necessary consequence is a consequence
that is actually based upon its
premises (good), and which forces itself upon the mind of an honest examiner of
those premises (necessary).[12] But how far does
this principle extend with regard to the worship of God? It extends to everything, with the only exceptions being those things which
are mere "circumstances" of worship. "Circumstances" of
worship are things "common to human actions and societies, which are to be
ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general
rules of the word which are always to be observed."[13]
A few examples will clarify this
distinction. The scripture does not hold forth a particular time of day at
which public worship ought to begin, nor a particular place at which it ought
to occur. But any organization
that has regular meetings, whether sacred or secular, must also have a stated
time and place of assembly. This is something "common to human
societies," and therefore a circumstantial part of worship. The church
must set a time and place for worship, and does so without in the least
infringing upon true Christian liberty. Even in setting a time and location for
meeting, however, we must be governed by the "light of nature, Christian
prudence, and the general rules of the word." Ordinarily, it would be
neither wise nor prudent to set the meeting time at 2:00 A.M. in a cave, for
obvious reasons. However, if terrible persecution were occurring, it might be
extremely wise and prudent to meet at 2:00 A.M. in a cave, for safety's sake.
It is a circumstance which must be decided, but the solution rests upon general
considerations and not on direct divine institution.
Consider also the lighting of the church.
Light is necessary for the reading of the word and for other parts of worship.
Today, this is normally provided by overhead electrical lighting. If the
electricity goes out, and candles are lit in order to illuminate the church that
services might continue, this is no transgression of the regulative principle.
But if we introduce some religious meaning to the lighting of candles (as is
done in the Anglican and Roman churches), we have crossed the line, and require
scripture institution to defend our practice. Status: RO
James Bannerman explains this distinction
very clearly and succinctly with these words, "As soon as you attach a
spiritual meaning, a sacred significance, to anything connected with worship,
it becomes eo ipso a part of
worship,"[14] and thus requires scriptural warrant. This
extensive view of the regulative principle is not unique to the Westminster
Standards. Article 67 of the Belgic Confession presents the same concept, but
Prof.E.'s editorial abridgement obscures that fact. The reformed church has
consistently used the regulative principle to oppose any addition or
corruption, whether it be the introduction of a new element, or a corruption of
the manner of observation of an
existing element (such as kneeling at the sacrament, or the use of exorcism and
oil in baptism). To limit the regulative principle merely to delineating
certain broad elements of worship is both unbiblical and unconfessional. For a
professor of theology to make such a representation is inexcusable.
But even Prof.E. does not consistently
hold to his deregulated version of the regulative principle. Whenever it fits
his purposes, he freely redefines the principle and uses it in a more extensive
fashion. The 1 May 1995 Standard Bearer contains an article in which Prof.E. discusses music in the worship
of the church. In the course of the article, he undertakes a defense of
exclusive psalmody, based in part upon the regulative principle. But he extends
his condemnation beyond hymn-singing in worship, and also criticizes the use of
choirs, soloists, and times of special music. On what basis does he make this
condemnation? According to Prof.E., choirs, soloists, and special music are
contrary to the "revealed will of God. "[15]
Only congregational singing of
the psalms is agreeable to scripture. No biblical warrant can be found for the
other. But to introduce choirs and soloists is not to introduce a new element
of worship. Rather, these things relate to the manner in which a particular
element singing praises to God is observed. Prof.E.'s argument is crucial to the
present topic, for he is admitting that the revealed will of God with regard to
worship (which is the regulative principle under another name) extends not only
to the element itself, but also to the manner of observing the element. But
this principle is just what he has been denying in his defense of festival
days. It is obvious that both cannot be true. Which is the true biblical and
confessional principle, we think, by now, is obvious.[16]
In reality, a view of the regulative
principle which artificially restricts the principle to the broad elements is a
device which allows for every variety of corruption to be intruded into the
pure worship of God. Every species of embellishment could be placed upon the
ordinances, so long as none seemed to introduce a new element. Every foul bird
and unclean thing could roost in the worship of the church with no remedy.
Prof.E. himself admits this much when he reconstructs the regulative principle
to oppose the corruptions which he personally dislikes. In fact, virtually no
innovation could be opposed, as long as it was dressed in the right garb by
some "Reformed" Jesuit.[17] This formulation of
the regulative principle is a double-barreled assault upon the purity of God's
instituted worship. By definition, it is also an attack upon the true liberty
of Christ's people. God has left the consciences of his people free in things
even "beside" the word in matters of faith and worship. But Prof.E.'s
doctrine opens the way for the destruction of Christian liberty by the tyranny
of extra-biblical tradition and governmental whim. This road ends with idolatry
and the oppression of God's people
for once a practice is approved, it will be required of all under the
government of the synod. Only let some poor soul protest the unwarranted
display of a popish religious symbol in his place of worship, seeking in good
conscience to maintain the simplicity of Christ, and watch the vigor with which
he will be assailed and condemned, and even required by his new masters to
continue his worship in a place which defiles his conscience.[18] This attack upon true liberty of conscience is
ultimately an attack upon the one who is lord over that conscience. It is men
telling Christ how far they shall allow him to be king over his own church, and
how far his laws may reach.[19] It is Christ wounded
in the house of his friends.
Chapter 5
There is a wide difference between what it is
lawful for the church to do on those occasions when God in His providence may
be calling its members to weeping and humiliation, or summoning them to special
joy and thanksgiving, and what it is lawful for the Church to do in the way of
setting up a standing part of its permanent worship.
James Bannerman[1]
Shall
we suppose that Christ and his apostles, in abrogating those days which God
himself had appointed to be observed, without instituting others in their room,
intended that either churches or individuals should be allowed to substitute
whatever they pleased in their room?
Thomas M'Crie[2]
Prof. E. continues his defense by
attempting to demonstrate that the day of worship cannot be a regulative principle issue, because the
church is free to worship God on any day of the week, for any
reason. As evidence, he introduces the testimony of the reformed confessions
respecting the occasional days of fasting and praise.[3]
Prof.E. admits that festival days have no warrant from the word. But he also
claims that the same is true of the occasional days of fasting and praise.
Since Westminster approved of the occasional days, just as Dordt approved of
the festival days, he concludes that neither the confessions nor scripture
apply the regulative principle to the day of worship (I:14-17; II:5-7). In
offering this argument, Prof.E. has omitted a critical portion of the biblical
and confessional teaching regarding days of worship the distinction between the occasional days of fasting and praise, known as prayer days,
and the annual memorial days,
known as festival days or holy days. He has also seriously blundered in his
assertion that occasional days of fasting and praise have no scriptural
warrant, and this very claim is the linchpin of his argument. When the
distinction between the two types of days is cleared, and the continuing
biblical warrant for the prayer days established, it will prove to be the
downfall of his edifice.
The reformed confessions make a clear
distinction between the festival days and the occasional days of prayer and
fasting. Prof.E. cites the Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God
as allowing for prayer days (I:17, II:7). Indeed, the Directory devotes two
entire chapters to the calling and management of public solemn fasts and days
of public thanksgiving. In its appendix, the Directory states,
"Nevertheless, it is lawful and necessary, upon special emergent
occasions, to separate a day or days for public fasting or thanksgiving, as the
several eminent and extraordinary dispensations of God's providence shall
administer cause and opportunity to his people."[4]
But just prior to this, the Directory speaks forcefully regarding the festival
days. "Festival days, vulgarly [commonly] called holy days, having no warrant in the word
of God, are not to be continued."[5]
Unfortunately, Prof.E. fails once again to quote or even mention the extremely
relevant portion of the document in his citation.[6]
The Directory distinguishes
between occasional prayer days and regular festival days. Not only that, the
Directory considers the day of worship to be an issue to which the word of God
is to be applied, for it condemns festival days on the basis of their "having
no warrant in the word."
The Synod of Dordt likewise made this
distinction between festival days and prayer days. Article 67 of the Church
Order of Dordt does indeed prescribe the observation of four annual religious
festival days, in addition to the regular Sunday celebration. But Article 66
states that "in times of war, pestilence, calamities, heavy persecution of
the churches, and other general distresses, the ministers of the churches shall
request the government to employ their authority and command that public days
of fasting and prayer be set aside." These are the prayer days. One
commentary on the Church Order of Dordt even titles these two sections
"Prayer Days" and "Festival Days" respectively.[7] The Synod of Dordt, while coming to a different
conclusion regarding the lawfulness of festival days, clearly distinguished
between the two types of days. The Synod made this distinction undoubtedly
because it is a biblical distinction
a distinction between two entirely different types of days, with completely
different regulations relating to their appointment and observance.
In the Old Testament we find the
observance of religious festival days (and weeks and months and years) in
addition to the weekly sabbath. Such days include the Passover, Pentecost, and
many others. They were often memorial in nature, celebrating the mighty works
of God in the past, and typical as well, pointing to some future spiritual
fulfillment in Christ. Nevertheless, these observances were not concocted by
the Jews according to their whims, nor were the Israelites free to add or
subtract from those appointed ceremonies. The Jews did not determine for
themselves which events were worthy of perpetual remembrance by annual
religious festivals. Rather, these days were appointed by God in his law. The
right of establishing festival days was reserved to God himself. It was a
regulative principle issue, if you will, a matter of God's revealed will.
But we find another sort of observance in
the Old Testament as well occasional
days of fasting or thanksgiving (Ezra 8:21; 2 Chron. 20; Jonah 3:5-10; Judges
20:26). These days were appointed by the nation or the church in response to
God's providential dealings; sometimes in response to sin and judgement,
sometimes in response to blessing and victory. But these observances were not
annual in character, or perpetual, they were occasional in other words, they were celebrated only once. To
annually repeat them would have destroyed their essential character as
responses to God's providential dealings.[8] In
one sense these days were also appointed by God, but by his providence rather
than his precept. As to their actual calling, however, they were appointed by
men. By comparing these two types of days, some simple moral principles are
established. First, we learn that it is the prerogative of God alone to
institute and abrogate religious festival days. Man has no role or right in
their appointment. Secondly, we see that God's eminent and extraordinary
providential dealings ought to be marked by special times of fasting and
thanksgiving. God ought to be specially praised for his eminent blessings, and
we should be specially humbled in the face of severe judgments or sins.[9]
This distinction, once established, does
not vanish in the New Testament. The Jewish festival days are beautifully
fulfilled in Christ, and thus done away forever. They are never applied to the
Gentile converts, although a period of tolerance for weak Jewish brethren was
allowed with regard to their continued observance. The day of the church's
regular worship is altered from the seventh to the eighth day (first day),
again in fulfillment of divine prophecy, and according to God's precept. The
moral precept regarding special prayer days also continues under the New
Testament, for God's providence in judgment and blessing continues as well;
there is as much warrant for specially called days of prayer now as under the
Old Testament.[10] But the appointment of festival days remains the
prerogative of God alone and as he
saw fit to assign a multitude under the Old Testament, so he saw fit to fulfill
and abolish them without replacement under the New (Gal. 4:9-10).
Despite Prof.E.'s assertions to the
contrary, festival days and prayer days are both scriptural institutions, with
different regulations regarding their appointment and observation. This leaves
us with a simple question to answer. Is Christmas a festival day or a prayer
day? The confessions all regard it as a festival day. It clearly fails to meet
the description of an occasional day of fasting or rejoicing, as it is a
repeated, memorial, religious festival. It only then remains to ask, was
Christmas appointed by God or by men? The answer, we think, is obvious, and so,
therefore, is its condemnation.
With regard to the distinction between
prayer days and festival days, Thomas M'Crie has these valuable words, with
which we conclude this section. "There are times when God calls, on the
one hand, to religious fasting, or, on the other, to thanksgiving and religious
joy; and it is our duty to comply with these calls, and to set apart time for
the respective exercises. But this is quite a different thing from recurrent or
anniversary holidays. In the former case the day is chosen for the duty, in the
latter the duty is performed for the day; in the former case there is no
holiness on the day but what arises from the service which is performed on it,
and when the same day afterward recurs, it is as common as any other day; in
the latter case the day is set apart on all following times, and may not be
employed for common or secular purposes. Stated and recurring festivals
countenance the false principle, that some days have a peculiar sanctity,
either inherent or impressed by the works which occurred on them; they proceed
on an undue assumption of human authority; interfere with the free use of that
time which the Creator hath granted to man; detract from the honour due to the
day of sacred rest which he hath appointed; lead to impositions over
conscience; have been a fruitful source of superstition and idolatry; and have
been productive of the worst effects upon morals, in every age, and among every
people, barbarous and civilized, pagan and Christian, popish and Protestant,
among whom they have been observed."[11]
Chapter 6
Long before the fourth century, and long before
the Christian era itself, a festival was celebrated among the heathen, at that
precise time of the year, in honour of the birth of the son of the Babylonian queen of heaven; and it may be fairly presumed that, in order
to conciliate the heathen, and to swell the number of the nominal adherents of
Christianity, the same festival was adopted by the Roman Church, giving it only
the name of Christ.
Alexander Hislop[1]
And
they rejected his statutes, and his covenant that he made with their fathers,
and his testimonies which he testified against them; and they followed vanity,
and became vain, and went after the heathen that were round about them,
concerning whom the Lord had charged them, that they should not do like them.
2
Kings 17:15
In his defense of Christmas-keeping,
Prof.E. downplays the relevance of the pagan and popish origins and
associations of the day (II:1-4). We must assume that on Prof.E.'s principles,
no matter how openly pagan was the origin of a custom, no matter how deeply
compromising was its institution, no matter how evil it has proven in its long
continuance in the church, as long as some "venerable" synod has
decreed it, it ought never to be removed. There are two biblical principles
which bear upon this matter; but first a little history is in order.
Prof.E. prefers to trace the origin of
Christmas to the synod of Dordt, and stop there (I:2). However, it is not
generally disputed that the celebration of Dec. 25 as a religious festival day
is of pagan origin. It is well known that the day was adopted by the declining
church, along with a host of other practices, as a growth technique, to suit
the tastes of the pagan multitudes whose actual religions had been criminalized
by the emperor of Rome. Not only the day was adopted from paganism, but most of
the customs as well from the
Christmas tree to the Christmas goose.[2]
Even the name is offensive and hostile to the true religion, being purely
popish in its meaning of "Christ's-mass." Indeed, Christmas is
stained not only by its pagan origins, but also by its popish associations; it
became a central celebration in the religion of the Roman Antichrist, and even
today bears the name of his blasphemous rite. On top of this, the modern
Christmas-keeper usually participates in a host of baptized pagan customs, all
brought in by Rome as a further capitulation to the pagan masses, in their
usual fashion of "evangelism." Prof.E. may wish to ignore or downplay
these facts, or pretend their irrelevancy, but he provides no proof that we should
assume this outlook other than his own assertion. Unfortunately, that has been
an oft repeated refrain in this examination.
The law of God is not silent regarding
these things. God flatly forbids the adoption of pagan religious customs, or
their syncretism with his revealed faith and worship (Deut. 12:2-3, 29-32; Lev.
18:3; Ex. 23:24; 2 Cor. 6:14-17). There is nothing really difficult to
understand about this prohibition; and it is only by willfully ignoring both
the origin and corrupt customs associated with Christmas that men fail to make
the obvious application.[3] It was forbidden absolutely to the ancient church to introduce this day, even if the introduction of other days had
been lawful. And the same is true for all the pagan and superstitious customs
and traditions that accompany the day. God's moral standards have not changed.
We are just as forbidden today to syncretize with false religion as the
Israelites of old were. To defend the present continuance of something that was
undeniably unlawful in its first institution is a weak and feeble cause.
There is a second principle from the word
of God that is involved here as well, drawn from the history of the brasen
serpent. One of the judgments which the Lord sent upon the children of Israel,
as they wandered in the wilderness, was a plague of deadly fiery serpents. When
the people finally repented and confessed their sins, the Lord instructed Moses
to make a "serpent of brass" which he was to set upon a pole, and
everyone that looked upon the serpent would be healed of their deadly wounds
(Num. 21:4-9). This serpent was not only a temporal deliverance for the
Israelites; it was a type of Christ. "And as Moses lifted up the serpent
in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever
believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3:14-15).
Many generations later, however, the brasen serpent became an occasion of
idolatry, a stumbling-block to the people of God. And so, in the godly
reformation of Hezekiah, it was destroyed along with all the other monuments to
idolatry in the kingdom. "He removed the high places, and brake the
images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that
Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to
it: and he called it Nehushtan [a piece of brass]" (2 Kings 18:4).
This is an event of monumental
significance. Here is a sign instituted by God himself, and a type of redemption
by Christ's crucifixion, openly destroyed by the reformer, and even treated
with contempt (as is indicated by his calling it merely "a piece of
brass"). We can almost hear the cries of "rigid, stifling (and
divisive) legalism" (I:22) going up, as our modern reformed seminary
professors cringe at the sight of an "ancient" and
"honorable" symbol being violently destroyed. But Hezekiah was wiser
than our modern Christmas-keepers. The serpent, though instituted by God, was
no part of the ordinary worship of God. It seems rather to have been retained
originally as simply a memorial of that great deliverance. The corrupted temple
service, being an integral part of God's worship, was reformed and restored
under Hezekiah. But the brasen serpent, being now a snare to idolatry, and a
superstitious relic, was destroyed.
Let us assume that Christmas was lawful in its institution. This
second principle would likewise demand its purgation from the church, as it was
and is a monument to popery, and is still filled with pagan and popish customs,
and has functioned (and continues to function) as a stumbling-block to men both
in the church and the world, snaring them to many worse sins than the mere
observation of days. And how much more does this principle weigh against
Christmas, than it did against the brasen serpent, seeing that Christmas has no
glorious history of divine institution, but that of man alone?
Perhaps a modern parallel would be
helpful. Readers may be familiar with Earth Day, a modern version of the
ancient pagan worship of the earth as a goddess, which is fast becoming a
global observance. What if the church, in an effort to accommodate and
encourage the conversion of radical environmentalists and neo -pagans,
instituted the celebration of this day, retaining all the customs associated
with it, only giving them a "Christian" meaning.[4] No
doubt Prof.E. would be outraged, and dire condemnations would appear in the
"Editorial" section of the Standard Bearer. But this is no different from the way in which
Christmas observance itself was appointed. So, evidently, if 100 or 1000 years
were to pass, and the observance obtained the force of custom, and major synods
prescribed its observation, Prof.E. would then defend the very same day to the
extreme, and even organize his own celebration of it, if his local church
abandoned and condemned it (II:23-26). Such is the labyrinth of ill-reasoning
one must negotiate, when assessing Prof.E.'s arguments and opinions. Perhaps we
should have entitled this work, Professor Engelsma Against Himself.
Chapter 7
With respect to ceremonies and above all the
observance of holy days: although there are some who eagerly long to remain in
conformity with such practices, I do not know how they can do so without
disregard for the edification of the church, nor how they can render an account
to God for having advanced evil and impeded its solution.
John Calvin[1]
Prof.E. cites an incident from the life of
Calvin, in which he supposedly opposed the abolition of feast days, as
exemplifying the "kind of wisdom" that defenders of the regulative
principle ought to demonstrate. He reveals that Calvin did indeed look
"askance at the celebration of Christmas because of the corrupting of that
celebration by Roman Catholicism." However, he also opines for his readers
that Calvin "did not flatly forbid it as a transgression of the second
commandment." And Prof.E. informs us that "when the Council decided
to abolish these observances, Calvin wrote that, if he had been asked for
advice, he would not have supported this decision" (I:18-22). Prof.E. does
not tell us why Calvin would
not have supported the decision, which is self-evidently a crucial piece of
information. Nor does he explain why we ought to receive this latter part of Calvin's wisdom in retaining feast days,
rather than receiving the former
part in which he looked askance at their observation. Of course, all of this
has very little to do with justifying feast days. Nevertheless, because Prof.E.
has seriously misused and misrepresented Calvin's position, and because this
very subject has confounded many writers, we feel that the cause of truth would
be well served by a clear presentation of Calvin's views on festival days. To
state the end at the beginning: although Calvin's views are not identical to
the Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God, they are even further from Prof.E.'s follies, and
condemn his position rather than justifying it. Let us see what the wisdom of
Calvin really is, and what
bearing it truly has on the defenders of the regulative principle.
When Calvin arrived in Geneva in 1536, the
observation of holy days had already been abolished by Farel and Viret.
"Before I ever entered the city, there were no festivals but the Lord's
day," Calvin wrote.[2] In 1537, Calvin and Farel presented their Articles
on the Organization of the Church and its Worship at Geneva. The Lord's Supper was to be celebrated weekly, or
even more often, but this change was to be gradually introduced by a monthly
observance. Significantly, no holy days are mentioned in these articles,
conforming with the existing practice of the city.
Within a year, the city of Geneva had
descended into political and ecclesiastical turmoil. Part of the trouble
involved the relationship of the church in Geneva to the church in Berne. The
Bernese desired for the Genevans to conform to their own practice in three
particulars: baptism at fonts, unleavened bread in the supper, and the
observance of the four "great festivals:" Christmas, Easter,
Ascension, and Pentecost. Calvin and many of the other ministers opposed the attempts of the Genevan city government to
impose these changes upon the Genevan church. This opposition was capitalized
upon by enemy ministers in Berne and Geneva, and by enemy councilmen in Geneva,
who saw in this controversy an opportunity to rid themselves of Calvin and his
rigorous church discipline, and to expand their political careers by fostering
unity with Berne.
Not long after Calvin publicly called the
Genevan council a "council of the devil," he was expelled from the
city.[3] At the same time as Calvin's expulsion, the
Genevan council instituted the Bernese ceremonies in the Genevan church,
including the four festival days. "Those [festivals] celebrated by you
were approved of by the same public decree by which Farel and I were expelled;
and it was rather extorted by the tumultuous violence of the ungodly, than
decreed according to the order of law," Calvin later wrote.[4] Calvin and Farel feared that Geneva might fare
very poorly after their expulsion in
fact, they feared that the city would revert to Romanism and thus the cause and
progress of the reformation in Geneva would be lost, and the name of Christ
grievously dishonored. In desperation, Calvin appealed to the synod sitting at
Zurich, agreeing to the adoption of the Bernese ceremonies, but even then only
with certain conditions. There were to be "safeguards for tender
consciences" and "Berne was to admit that the Genevan ceremonies in
previous use were not contrary to Scripture." These attempts at
reconciliation failed, and Farel and Calvin remained cast out of the city they
had so faithfully labored to reform. The year was 1538.[5]
By 1539 trouble had again flared between
Geneva and Berne, with the result that two of the four Syndics who had opposed
Calvin fled Geneva and were sentenced to death in absentia. They were replaced by supporters of Calvin. The
two other Syndics who opposed Calvin both died in 1540 under extremely
dishonorable circumstances. Two of the ministers who had opposed Calvin
departed shortly thereafter.[6] All of this paved the
way for Calvin's return in 1541. As a condition of his return, a settled church
government was agreed upon. The Ordonnances ecclesiastiques were prepared by a committee of ministers and councilmen
in 1541 and passed through a process of revision and ratification by the three
levels of civil government in, Geneva, ultimately passing into law. Calvin had
sought to return to a monthly observance of the supper (at least), but was
thwarted in his desires.[7] The final draft of the Ordonnances instead established "that it should be
administered four times a year, namely, at Christmas, Easter, Whitsun, and on
the first Sunday of September in the autumn,"[8]
thus also guaranteeing the continued observation of the four festivals. From
this time forth, Calvin "pursued the moderate course of keeping Christ's
birth day."[9]
Some researchers have concluded that it
was Calvin's normal practice not
to interrupt his regular expository series with special sermons devoted to
seasonal observances, a practice which would indicate a complete lack of regard
for the festival calendar. [10] But this conclusion
may have been based upon a survey of Calvin's practice when holy days in Geneva
were forbidden. By 1549, Calvin was definitely interrupting his normal
expositions to bring sermons that matched the ecclesiastical calendar set forth
by the Ordonnances of 1541.[11] In 1549 Calvin brought seven sermons over seven
days on the passion and resurrection of Christ (Easter), a special Pentecost
sermon, and a sermon on Christ's nativity for the Christmas Day Lord's Supper.
In 1550, he preached eight sermons, Sunday to Sunday, again on the passion of
Christ for Easter week.[12] This practice soon ended, however. On Nov. 16,
1550, the Council again voted to eliminate the feast days.[13]
The Register of the pastors in
Geneva notes the change with these words, "an edict was also announced
respecting the abrogation of all the festivals, with the exception of Sundays,
which God had ordained."[14] There is some
historical confusion over what exactly occurred. The pastor's register
indicates that all the days
were abolished, but according to Beza, Christmas was "deferred to the
Sabbath following," but "no other feast days" were kept except
the Lord's day.[15] Not surprisingly, this change resulted in another
great controversy with Berne. Status: RO
There is an important letter from this
time, written 2 January 1551, in which Calvin explains his relationship to and
opinion regarding this change in Geneva.[16]
This is the letter to which Prof.E. refers in his defense of Christmas-keeping
(i:21). Calvin indeed denies being the author or instigator of the change, and
maintains that he was not even consulted about it. (Rumors had abounded that he
was responsible for the decision.) Calvin states that "if I had got my
choice, I should not have decided in favor of what has now been agreed
upon." This much Prof.E. feels obliged to tell us, but he seriously
misrepresents the intent of Calvin's letter by citing only this fragment. The
whole purpose of the letter is not to complain about the change to Haller, but rather to defend it! He explains that the days were not instituted
in 1539 by "order of law" but were rather "extorted by the
tumultuous violence of the ungodly." He tells Haller that he had been
dissatisfied by what he perceived as a diversity of practice prevalent in the
city, fearful that it would cause disharmony amongst the citizenry and mistrust
amongst strangers, and so he had asked the Council to take steps to remedy that
diversity. The abolition of the festivals was evidently their solution. He
tells his correspondent that "although I have neither been the mover nor
instigator to [the change], yet, since it has happened, I am not sorry for
it," and advises Haller that if he himself 'knew the state of our churches
as well as I do, [he] would not hesitate to subscribe to my judgment." He
remonstrates with Haller that the abandoning of the feasts was merely the
"use of our liberty as the edification of the church demands." He
also reminds him that if a certain Bernese minister had not acted out of personal ambition on an earlier
occasion, "feast days might have been abolished in that entire
province." Calvin was not sorry with the change, thought it best suited the
condition of the church, and believed it was an edifying change according to
their liberty. But the question remains, why did Calvin
say that he would not have advised them to make this decision if he had been
consulted? The answer is in a subsequent letter. As Gillespie states in citing that very document, "...as
himself showeth in the following epistle, the reason why he durst scarcely have
so determined [to abolish the festivals], if his judgement had been required,
was, because he saw neither end nor remedy for the prevailing tumult of
contention raised about festival days, and likely to impede the course of the
reformation; therefore fovendae pacis studio [out of eagerness to foster peace], he professeth
that he durst not make mention of the abrogation of those holidays."[17]
The ban must not have lasted long. By 1553
we find Calvin again interrupting his usual course of sermons for sermons on
texts related to the festivals. (The Christmas celebration evidently remained
confined to Sunday in this restoration, however; there was no separate
celebration of Dec.25). In 1553, there were eight Easter sermons and one for
Nativity. In 1554, three for Easter, one each for Pentecost and Nativity. In
1555, one each for Easter and Pentecost. No further sermons are noted on the
record, and it is interesting to see how they seem to have been trailing off
even in this restitution.[18]
By 1557 Calvin was writing such words as
these, "With respect to ceremonies and above all the observance of holy
days [I offer the following]: Although there are some who eagerly long to
remain in conformity with such practices, I do not know how they can do so
without disregard for the edification of the church, nor [do I know] how they
can render an account to God for having advanced evil and impeded its
solution."[19] (Ironically, this letter is dated 25 Dec 1557.) In
a letter to the Montbelgardens, Calvin advised the lately -reformed church to
bear with feast days only because of the tenuous establishment of the gospel
among them; not to count them to be a good thing; and to rebuke them as
superstitions later when the gospel was more stable among them. In this same
letter he "condemneth both the observing of days to the honour of man as
superstitious, ...and the observing of them for the honour of God as
Judaical."[20]
Several conclusions can be made from this
survey of Calvin's attitudes and practices with regard to the festival days:
1. It is true that Calvin did not consider
the festival days per se a
violation of the second commandment in the way that he counted the Mass to be,
for example. But to infer from this fact that Calvin approved of festival days
is altogether unwarranted. There were many things, festival days included,
which Calvin considered corruptions from pure, apostolic worship, yet not of
such a serious nature that they could not be borne with for a time to advance
the cause of reformation.
2. Calvin did consider festivals to be "fooleries, gave
advice not to approve them, thought them occasions of superstition, held it
superstition to distinguish one day from another, or to esteem one above
another, [and] call[ed] them Judaical though kept to the honour of God. "[21]
3. Calvin never advocated nor sought the institution of such
festivals, and only complied with such actions under the most desperate of
circumstances, when the gospel itself was threatened. Furthermore, in dealing
with other churches, he always recommended the abolition of festivals if it all
possible, and thought them an evil to be born with only when necessary for the
progress of the gospel.
4. Because he did not consider them an
absolute violation of the second commandment, he was ruled by another principle
when dealing with them the
edification of the church. Because he could not obtain their removal without
tumult that would have been harmful to the progress of the gospel in Geneva, he
submitted to that of which he did not approve.
Whether we agree or disagree with Calvin's
course of action, or his views of the nature of the evil of holy days, it is
most obvious that only by a torturous wrenching of his opinions can he be made
to serve as an advocate for the institution and maintenance of holy days in our
modern condition. His principles of worship caused him to consider them a
corruption and a superstition. His own opinion and advice was against them.
Only he was restrained by a view of his circumstances, that the tumult that
would erupt would outweigh the benefit gained by their abandonment. But we are
not in his circumstances today. We have no civil government from whom to fear
repercussions. We have no church made up of the entire body politic of an
unruly city. We have complete freedom to reform the church according to its
original institution. That was Calvin's ultimate quest. And that is his wisdom for us today.
Chapter 8
But now, after that ye have known God, or rather
are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements,
whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and
times and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in
vain.
Gal. 4:9-11
Full
well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
Mark 7:9
The corruption of the worship of God by
man-made ceremonies leads generally to the fanatical defense of those
corruptions. There is a direct relationship between superstition and
fanaticism, and will-worship. This is the consistent warning of scripture
precept, and the testimony of the history of Israel especially as recorded in
the books of Kings and Chronicles. Whenever men institute unwarranted religious
observances, they become more zealous in defending their own inventions than
that which is commanded by God. Prof.E. tells us that if his consistory
canceled the Christmas celebration for reasons of expediency, to "avoid the
secular corruption of Christmas or the threat of Roman Catholicism," he
would consider their thinking "to be faulty" but would acquiesce
regretfully in the "giving up of a delightful, edifying service"
(II:24-25). But if his consistory committed the monstrous outrage of naming as
their reason that Christmas violated the second commandment, he "would
move heaven and earth to restore the observance and attend an observance"
himself (ii:26). Here is a man who would devote himself with titanic, heaven-moving
zeal to the restoration of a service he confesses to be without scriptural
foundation! The party found in the scriptures which this behavior most emulates
we need not even name.
This is not the only historical and
scriptural lesson about the deceiving power of will-worship and man -invented
ceremonies. Such practices lead not only to fanaticism with regard to personal
observance and the defense of the corruptions, they lead also to harsh and
violent assaults upon those who seek to maintain and restore the pure worship
of God. What began with a refusal to repent of false worship ended with the
murder of the Lord of glory (Matt. 15:1-20; Mark 7:1-23). How much of the
prophets' blood was shed simply for calling Israel back to the pure worship of
God? And how vigorously was Paul opposed by those who sought to contaminate the
worship of God with Jewish traditions and pagan customs?
Prof.E. tells us that those who oppose
Christmas on the basis of the second commandment, who charge that
Christmas-keeping is a violation of that commandment, had better "Beware,
lest in applying the good principle [they] fall into a rigid, stifling (and
divisive) legalism, and, thus, imperil the principle itself" (I:22;
II:20-21). He attempts to make a distinction here, in order to palliate the
slander he has just made. He tells us that he does not accuse those "who
stand in the tradition of Westminster with any wrong-doing as regards their
worship." Nor does he blame those who simply exercise their liberty not to
observe Christmas. He only "warns" those who condemn Christmas as a
transgression of the second commandment. But this equivoca tion is simply
ridiculous. Almost everyone who
does not observe Christmas does so on the basis of the second commandment. All those who "stand in the tradition of
Westminster" condemn Christmas on the basis of the second commandment, because
the Westminster Standards themselves condemn Christmas as a violation of the
second commandment. So, of
necessity, the original accusation stands against the entire Westminster
Assembly.
And what of Nathaniel Vincent and John
Flavel, representative Puritans? Vincent condemns festival days under his
exposition of the second and fourth commandments, and calls them popish
superstitions; Flavel condemns them under the fourth commandment. Now our
author's warning encompasses all of Puritanism.
And what of the Church of Scotland? The First
Book of Discipline not only
condemns festival days; it calls for the civil magistrate to punish those
who observe them! The General
Assembly of the Church of Scotland repeated this request in 1575. The General
Assembly, in 1645, unanimously
voted to require church discipline against those who kept the festivals, and to
require public repentance before the congregation for the lifting of discipline.
So the church of Scotland for at least one hundred years, and all puritanism
for that long as well, was nothing but a pack of "rigid, stifling (and
divisive) legalists," as well as all those who receive the full
Westminster Standards as their creed.
And on what basis are we to receive and
heed this warning? Some word of scripture? Some article of a reformed
confession? No, none of those. We are to receive this accusation on the word
of Prof.E. alone, for he provides
not one shred of evidence, not one jot or tittle of scripture proof. Nothing to
support these terrible words.
And what of the substance of his
accusations? To level the charge of "rigidity" is nonsense. What does
it even mean? The rigidity of not committing will-worship and devising the worship
of God according to the whims of ignorant, sinful, fallible man? Was God
"rigid" when he failed to make allowance for the celebration of
Christmas in his word, when he failed to substitute this observance for the
abolished Jewish ceremonies? Was the early church "rigid" when they
failed to commemorate or even record the day of Christ's birth, and instead
condemned the keeping of days as superstitious? The rigidity with which Prof.E.
charges his opponents is merely the rigidity of the word of God; and if Prof.E.
dislikes that narrow way, he has a quarrel with one far greater than ourselves.
Prof.E. likewise calls such a view
"divisive." There is truth to that accusation, though not in the
sense in which he alleges it. It divides those who find the word of God to be a
sufficient rule of faith and worship, from those who prefer to embellish that
plain revelation with their own whims and desires. But we suspect that Prof.E.
rather means that such a view of the regulative principle is apt to introduce
dissension into Protestant Reformed Churches over a myriad of issues, such as
crosses in worship, psalters, and other such things which Prof.E. considers
trifles, and in which he finds no harm in trampling down the consciences of
those under his authority who are tender against them.
Prof.E. also considers such a view of the
regulative principle to be "stifling." Perhaps this is the most
telling of all his accusations. It is certainly "stifling" to
anything not found in the word of God, which is exactly the problem Prof.E. has
with it. His heart is set upon worshipping God in "delightful, edifying
service[s]" (II:24) that God has not commanded, and so he no doubt finds
the thought of abstaining from such services to be stifling. But surely
stifling human innovation in the worship of God is no sin, and no cause for
alarm and concern. In fact, it is a virtue. Our Saviour practiced it regularly.
But the most terrible of his allegations,
is that of "legalism." This is a monstrous charge which is calculated
to reflect upon the character and piety of those who condemn Christmas on the
basis of the second commandment (which, as we have noted, is virtually everyone
who doesn't observe it). But legalism is no small matter. It is a terrible sin.
In fact, it is a sin, which, in its most mature variety, is inconsistent with
salvation by the gospel of Jesus Christ. True legalists are lost men, not
"brethren." For Prof.E. to insinuate that those who condemn Christmas
on the basis of the second commandment are or may be "legalists," and
to provide not one word of evidence that it is a true accusation, is
intolerable libel. Praise God that we are completely innocent of that guilt if
this is the only evidence against us. To our own master we stand or fall, and
we are persuaded that God shall be able to make us stand.
Prof.E. is persuaded that a view of the
regulative principle which condemns Christmas-keeping as a violation of the
second commandment "imperil[s] the principle itself," and is contrary
to the wisdom that "defenders" of the regulative principle must
demonstrate. In reality, we have seen that it is Prof.E.'s public writings that are imperiling the regulative principle, as
he continues to give erroneous expositions of that scriptural and biblical
truth, expositions that allow for a whole host of corruptions to defile the
pure worship of God. And what wisdom "defenders" of the regulative
principle ought to practice, cannot
be learned from him, as he is not currently among their number.
Chapter 9
Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith
Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
Gal. 5:1
They
zealously affect you, but not well. But it is good to be zealously affected
always in a good thing....
Gal. 4:17-18
And
it came to pass, when Ahab saw Elijah, that Ahab said unto him, Art thou he
that troubleth Israel? And he answered, I have not troubled Israel; but thou,
and thy father's house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord,
and hast followed Baalim.
1 Kings 18:17-18
Am
I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
Gal. 4:16
Rather than summarizing and restating all
which has gone before, we prefer here simply to make a few concluding
applications which may bear upon the reader. The scriptures and reformed
confessions not only address words of condemnation to those who dare to
introduce their own whims and devices into the worship of God, they also
address words of warning and duty to the people of God who might be the
subjects of those impositions. It is our responsibility to cast off those
unbiblical burdens which men attempt to bind upon our backs. It is our duty to
reject and oppose those who would lay those burdens upon us. This duty pertains
especially to the pastors of the church, but is also a duty of the congregation
as a whole. Paul exemplifies this behavior when he tells the Galatians of how
he responded to "false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily
to spy out our liberty which we have in Jesus Christ, that they might bring us
into bondage" (Gal. 2:4). Did Paul simply ignore them, or allow their
impositions? No, with regard to those men, he says, "we gave place by
subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue
with you" (Gal. 2:5). And he commands them to follow him in that same
course, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us
free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage" (Gal. 5:1).
Likewise he repeatedly warns the Colossians against subjecting themselves to
human ordinances and will -worship (Col. 2:16-23). To Timothy also he gives
warnings and admonitions to beware of the lies of those who would bind the
people of God to unscriptural observances, and to teach carefully those
doctrines which will preserve the church from such errors (1 Tim. 2:1-7).
Reader, if the Son has made you free, you
are free indeed. Do not compromise your freedom by submitting to the whims and
traditions of men in the worship of God. Beware of those who would hand over
your liberty to the whims of the government of the church. Beware of those who
would voluntarily bind burdens upon your back which they themselves confess are
founded purely on tradition, with no word from God. Beware of those who would
pervert the testimony of the scripture and the creeds to allow for the
intrusion of man -invented ceremonies into God's holy worship.
"God alone is Lord of the conscience,
and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are in
any thing contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith or worship.
So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commandments out of
conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience...." Dear reader, be
careful not to betray your liberty. It is the precious legacy of the blood of
Christ, purchased with his agonizing death. It is part of the New Testament in
his blood. Stand fast in your liberty. Give no place by subjection, no, not for
an hour. And may God richly bless you in your faithfulness unto the glory of
the only lord of our consciences, the only king of the church, the only
lawmaker for the kingdom of heaven, our Saviour Jesus Christ.
Footnotes for
Christmas-Keeping and the Reformed
Faith
Chapter 2
1. David J. Engelsma,
"Response," The Standard Bearer, 15 December 1994,
127.
2. Professor Engelsma is
responding to a letter to the editor; his correspondent had made reference to
Christmas: A Biblical Critique by Michael Schneider and Kevin Reed (Dallas:
Presbyterian Heritage, 1993).
3. David J. Engelsma,
"Response," The Standard Bearer, 15 March 1995,
299-300.
Chapter
3
1. John Calvin, Calvin's
Ecclesiastical Advice, trans. Mary Beaty and Benjamin W. Farley
(Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991), 93.
2. David J. Engelsma, "The
Standard Bearer: Holding the Traditions," The Standard
Bearer, 1 November 1991, 54.
4. Belgic Confession, Art. 7;
Westminster Confession, 31:4, 1:10; Acts 17:11; 1 Thess. 5:21.
5. David J. Engelsma, "A
History of the Church's Doctrine of Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage," Protestant
Reformed Theological Journal 27, no.2 (April, 1994), 12-20.
7. "The Reformed
churches had been in the habit of keeping Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide as
days of religious worship. The synod enjoined the churches to do this no
longer, but to be satised with Sundays for divine service." Maurice G.
Hansen, The Reformed Church in the Netherlands (New York: Board
of Publication of the Reformed Church in America, 1884), 89. The reference
regarding the 1578 decision is from Increase Mather's 1687 publication, Testimony
Against Prophane Customs.
8. In answer to the question,
Why exactly did the Synod of Dordt prescribe festival days, DeGier states that
it was "done as a concession to the Authorities...." K. DeGier, Explanation
of the Church-Order of Dordt in Questions and Answers, ([1974] n.p., 97).
This creates an interesting dilemma for those who have renounced that portion
of the Belgic Confession which vested some degree of religious responsibility
in the civil magistrate, and have replaced it with an open denial of the
Establishment principle.
9. Church Order of Dordt,
Art. 67.
10. Belgic Confession, Art.
32. Cf. Art. 7.
11. Westminster Confession,
20:2. Cf. 1:6,10; 21:1; 31:3,4. We have cited here the original text, as
published in S.W. Carruthers, The Westminster Confession of Faith (Manchester: R.
Aikman & Son, 1937). Cf. Collected Writings of John
Murray (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth,1982), 3:294-95.
12. Westminster Confession,
20:1,2.
13. Westminster Confession,
20:2.
16. David J. Engelsma,
"A History of the Church's Doctrine of Marriage, Divorce, and
Remarriage," Protestant Reformed Theological Journal 27, no. 2 (April,
1994), 19.
Chapter
4
1. John Calvin, Calvin's
Ecclesiastical Advice (Translated by Mary Beatty and Benjamin W. Farley;
Louisville: Westminste r/John Knox Press, 1991), 19.
3. Heidelberg Catechism, q.
96.
5. Belgic Confession, Art.
32.
6. Westminster Larger
Catechism, q. 3.
7. Westminster Confession,
16:1.
8. Westminster Confession,
20:2.
9. Westminster Confession,
21:1.
10. Westminster Larger
Catechism, q. 109.
11. Westminster Confession,
1:6.
12. James Bannerman, The
Church of Christ (1869; rpt. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1974),
2:411.
13. Westminster Confession,
1:6. John Owen describes circumstances as "sundry things to be used in,
about, and with those actions whereby the worship of God is performed, which
yet are not sacred, nor do belong unto the worship of God as such, though that
worship cannot be performed without them. The very breath that men breathe and
the light whereby they see are necessary to them in the worship of God, and yet
are not made sacred or religious thereby....[A]ll such circumstances as
necessarily attend human actions, as such, neither are sacred nor can be made so
without an express institution of God, and are disposable by human
authority...." John Owen, The Works of John Owen (Edinburgh: Banner
of Truth, 1967), 13:469. Gillespie gives three conditions for things which the
church has power to prescribe by law: "1st. It must be only a circumstance
of divine worship; no substantial part of it; no sacred signicant and efcacious
ceremony.... 2nd[It] must be one of such things as were not determinable by
Scripture. 3rd. If the church prescribe anything lawfully her ordinance must be
accompanied with some good reason and warrant given for the satisfaction of
tender consciences." George Gillespie, A Dispute Against the English
Popish Ceremonies Obtruded on the Church of Scotland, in The Works Of
George Gillespie (1637; rpt. Edmonton: Still Waters Revival Books,
1991), 1:130-131. In this work, Gillespie expressly condemns festival days,
among other things.
14. Bannerman, The Church
of Christ, 1:355.
15. David J. Engelsma,
"Music in the Church," The Standard Bearer, 1 May 1995, 376.
16. We noted earlier that
Prof.E.'s true controlling principle appears to be the denominational status
quo. This status quo principle not only controls which version of the
regulative principle he employs, it also affects how closely he adheres to the
confessional documents he has sworn to uphold. In the previously cited article
entitled "Music in the Church," Prof.E. attempts to defend exclusive
psalmody from the Church Order of Dordt. Despite the fact that Article 69 of
the Church Order prescribes that "In the Churches only the 150 Psalms of
David, the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, the Twelve Articles of Faith,
the Song of Mary, that of Zacharias, and that of Simeon shall be sung,"
Prof.E. tells us that the "spirit and principle of Article 69 is: 'In the
churches only the 150 Psalms of David shall be sung.' Period!" This is
simply ludicrous. The "principle" of Article 69 is that the Psalms
and the other mentioned items shall be sung, and allowance is also made
for the hymn, "Oh God! who art our Father." Period. The language is
identical to that of Article 67, "The Churches shall observe...
Christmas." But Prof.E. considers only one of those two "shalls"
to be prescriptive; the other he feels free to creatively deny. Once again, the
winner is the "status quo."
18. For an example of an
ecclesiastical council imposing superstition upon a protesting minority, see
the Acts of Synod and Yearbook of the Protestant Reformed Churches in
America, 1990 and Supplement to the Acts of Synod of the
Protestant Reformed Churches in America, 1990.
Chapter
5
1. James Bannerman, The
Church of Christ ( 1869; rpt. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1974),
1:411.
2. Thomas M'Crie, Lectures
on the Book of Esther (1838; rpt. Lynchburg: James Family, 1979),
297-98.
3. Utilizing the prayer days
to argue for festival days is not original with Prof.E. The same arguments were
used by the prelatic enemies of the gospel in the 17th century, in their
attempts to defend the imposition of those days upon the Scottish church.
George Gillespie fully refutes these arguments in his Dispute Against the
English Popish Ceremonies. Given Prof.E.'s close agreement with the prelates
on this point, perhaps the professor should reconsider either his argument, or his
ecclesiastical connections.
4. "The Directory for
the Publick Worship of God," Westminster Confession of Faith (Glasgow: Free
Presbyterian Publications, 1994), 394.
7. K. DeGier, Explanation
of the Church-Order of Dordt in Questions and Answers, 96-97.
11. M'Crie, Lectures on
the Book of Esther, 298-300.
Chapter
6
1. Alexander Hislop, The
Two Babylons (1916; rpt.
Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux Brothers, Inc., 1943), 93.
2. Alexander Hislop, The
Two Babylons, 90-103.
3. John Owen writes,
"[W]hen any thing is enjoined or imposed on men's practice in the worship
of God, which is known to have been invented in and by the papal church during
the time of its confessed apostasy, it must needs beget prejudices against it
in the minds of them who consider the ways, means, and ends of the fatal
defection of that church, and are jealous of a sinful compliance with it in any
of those things." (Owen, Works, 13:487). Gillespie is more aggressive,
writing, "Forasmuch, then, as kneeling before the consecrated bread, the
sign of the cross, surplice, festival days, bishopping, bowing
down to the altar, administration of the sacrament 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 symbolise with the idolatrous Papists in the use of the same,
without making ourselves idolaters by participation. Shall the chaste spouse of
Christ take upon her the ornaments of the whore? Shall the Israel of God
symbolise with her who is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt? Shall the Lord's
redeemed people wear the ensigns of their captivity? Shall the saints be seen
with the mark of the beast? Shall the Christian church be like the antichristian,
the holy like the profane, religion like superstition, the temple of God like
the synagogue of Satan?" (George Gillespie, A Dispute Against the
English Popish Ceremonies, in Works (1637; rpt.
Edmonton: Still Waters Revival Books, 1991), 1:80).
Chapter
7
1. John Calvin, Calvin's
Ecclesiastical Advice (Translated by Mary Beaty and Benjamin W. Farley;
Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991), 90.
2. John Calvin, "Letter
to Haller," Calvin's Selected Works (Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1983), 5:288.
3. The entire preceeding
section is based upon information drawn from T.H.L. Parker, John Calvin: A
Biography (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975), 62-66.
4. Calvin, "Letter to
Haller," 5:288.
8. The Register of the
Company of Pastors of Geneva in the Time of Calvin (Philip Edgcumbe
Hughes, trans.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966), 44.
9. Calvin, "Letter to
Haller," 5:288
10. Leroy Nixon [editor and
translator], Preface to Sermons on the Saving Work of Christ by John Calvin
(1950; rpt. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), 8.
11. T.H.L. Parker, Calvin's
Preaching (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992), 160. It is possible
that Calvin may have begun this practice much sooner after Geneva adopted the Ordonnances, but the French
scribe was hired in 1549, and it is in his records that the rst evidence of
these festival sermons is found. See Parker, John Calvin, 91.
12. Parker, Calvin's
Preaching, 160.
13. Ed. note to Calvin,
"Letter to Viret," Calvin's Selected Works, 5:290.
14. The Register of the
Company of Pastors of Geneva in the Time of Calvin (Philip Edgcumbe
Hughes, trans.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966), 130.
15. Theodore Beza, "The
Life of John Calvin," Calvin's Selected Works, 1:lv-lvi.
17. George Gillespie, A
Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies Obtruded on the Church of
Scotland, in The Works Of George Gillespie (1637; rpt.
Edmonton: Still Waters Revival Books, 1991), 1:22.
18. Parker, Calvin's
Preaching, 161-162. Parker thinks that a series occured in
1551, but this is extremely unlikely, given the fact that that was the year of
the edict, and that no festival sermons are recorded for 1552. It seems likely
that 1553 was the year of a mild restitution of the festivals, although they
were not consistently restored. Easter is the only festivity which appears
regularly from 1553 to 1555, when the record ends.
19. John Calvin, Calvin's
Ecclesiastical Advice (Translated by Mary Beaty and Benjamin W. Farley
(Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991), 90.
20. George Gillespie,
A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies Obtruded on the Church of
Scotland, in The Works Of George Gillespie (1637; rpt. Edmonton: Still Waters Revival Books,
1991), 1:24.
21. George Gillespie,
A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies Obtruded on the Church of
Scotland, in The Works Of George Gillespie (1637; rpt. Edmonton: Still Waters Revival Books,
1991), 1:24.
Copyright ©1995 by David W. Cason
DO DEMONS LOVE CHRISTMAS? - Mather, Calvin's
Geneva, the Westminster Assembly, American Puritans ...
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)
CHIRSTMASS, REFORMED ICONOCLASM, THE SCRIPTURAL LAW
OF WORSHIP & WE NEED A NEW WAR AGAINST THE IDOLS
CHRISTMAS: FREE BOOKS, MP3s & Videos By The
Best Reformers, Puritans and Covenanters
Christmas Is Part Of Roman Catholic
(Papacy/Antichrist) Missionary Strategy And High-Handed Idolatry