These quotes should keep you busy.
I'm off to make some gingerbread
THE REGULATIVE PRINCIPLE OF WORSHIP AND CHRISTMAS by BRIAN SCHWERTLEY (FREE BOOK on why Christ CONDEMNS CHRISTMAS at Still Waters Revival Books)
Those who observe the Romish festivals or fasts shall only be reprimanded,
unless [i.e., if] they remain obstinately rebellious. --Register
of the Company of Pastors (Geneva, 1546).
Abrogation of Festivals. On Sunday 16 November 1550,
after the election of the lieutenant in the general Council, an edict
was also announced respecting the abrogation of all the festivals,
with the exception of Sundays, which God had ordained.--Register
of the Company of Pastors (Geneva, 1550).
By the contrary doctrine, we understand whatsoever men, by laws, councils,
or constitutions have imposed upon the consciences of men, without
the expressed commandment of God's Word; such as the vows of chastity,
forswearing of marriage, binding of men and women to several disguised
apparels, to the superstitious observation of fasting days, difference
of meat [food] for conscience' sake, prayer for the dead; and keeping
of holy days of certain saints commanded by man, such as be all those
that the Papists have invented, as the feasts (as they term them)
of Apostles, Martyrs, Virgins, of Christmass, Circumcision, Epiphany,
Purification, and other fond feasts of our Lady. Which things, because
in God's Scriptures they neither have commandment nor assurance, we
judge them utterly to be abolished from the realm; affirming farther,
that the obstinate maintainers and teachers of such abominations ought
not to escape the punishment of the Civil magistrate. --Church
of Scotland, (First) Book of Discipline (1560).
This one thing, however, we can scarcely refrain from mentioning,
with regard to what is written in the 24th chapter of the aforesaid
Confession [Second Helvetic] concerning the "festival of our Lord's
nativity, circumcision, passion, resurrection, ascension, and sending
the Holy Ghost upon his disciples," that these festivals at the
present time obtain no place among us; for we dare not religiously
celebrate any other feast-day than what the divine oracles have prescribed.
--The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland [subscribed by
John Knox, John Craig, James Melville, and a host of others], Letter
to the Very Eminent Servant of Christ, Master Theodore Beza, the Most
Learned and Vigilant Pastor of the Genevan Church (1566).
That all days that heretofore have been kept holy, besides the Sabbath
days, such as Yule [Christ-mass] day, Saint's days, and such others,
may be abolished, and a civil penalty against the keepers thereof
by ceremonies, banqueting, fasting, and such other vanities. --General
Assembly of the Church of Scotland, Articles to be Presented
to my Lord Regent's Grace (1575).
[W]e abhor and detest all contrary religion and doctrine; but chiefly
all kind of Papistry in general and particular heads, even as they
are now damned and confuted by the Word of God and Kirk of Scotland.
But, in special, we detest and refuse the usurped authority of that
Roman Antichrist upon the Scriptures of God, upon the Kirk, the civil
magistrate, and consciences of men;. . . [his] dedicating of
kirks, altars, days;. . . --John Craig [subscribed by the
king and the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1580; renewed
in 1581, 1590 and 1638], The National Covenant: or, the Confession
of Faith (1580).
The Kirk of Geneva, keeps Pasche and Yule, what have they for them?
They have no institution [from Scripture]. --King James VI (James
I, of King James Bible fame), Address to the General Assembly
of the Church of Scotland (1590).
If Paul condemns the Galatians for observing the feasts which God
himself instituted, and that for his own honour only, and not for
the honour of any creature: the Papists are much more laid open to
condemnation, which press observations of feasts of men's devising,
and to the honour of men. --Thomas Cartwright (Nonconformist minister,
England), The Confutation of the Rhemists' Translation, Glosses
and Annotations (1618).
On the day called Christmas Day, the Governor called them out to work
as was used. But the most of this new company excused themselves and
said it went against their consciences to work on that day. So the
Governor told them that if they made it a matter of conscience, he
would spare them till they were better informed; so he led away the
rest and left them. But when they came home at noon from their work,
he found them in the street at play, openly; some pitching the bar,
and some at stool-ball and such like sports. So he went to them and
took away their implements and told them that was against his conscience,
that they should play and others work. If they made the keeping of
it a matter of devotion, let them keep their houses; but there should
be no gaming or reveling in the streets. Since which time nothing
hath been attempted that way, at least openly. --William Bradford
(governor, Plymouth colony), Of Plymouth Plantation (1621).
Opposed to the ordinance of the Lord's Day are all feast days ordained
by men when they are considered holy days like the Lord's Day. --William
Ames (Nonconformist minister, exiled to the Netherlands; professor
of theology at Franeker), The Marrow of Theology (1623).
The PASTOR thinketh it no Judaism nor superstition, but a moral duty
to observe the Sabbath. . . . Beside the Sabbath he can admit
no ordinary holidays appointed by man, whether in respect of any mystery,
or of difference of one day from another, as being warranted by mere
tradition, against the doctrine of Christ and his apostles, but accounteth
the solemn fasts and humiliations unto which the Lord calleth, to
be extraordinary sabbaths, warranted by God himself.
The PRELATE, by his doctrine, practice, example, and neglect of discipline,
declareth that he hath no such reverend estimation of the Sabbath.
He doteth so upon the observation of Pasche, Yule, and festival days
appointed by men, that he preferreth them to the Sabbath, and hath
turned to nothing our solemn fasts and blessed humiliations. --David
Calderwood (minister and theologian, Church of Scotland), The
Pastor and the Prelate (1628).
Concerning ceremonial festivals, of man's making, our practice cannot
be objected: because we observe none. We take occasion of hearing,
and praying, upon any day, when occasion is offered. We say (with
Hospinian, de Orig. Fest. Christ, cap. 2.),
Not the day, but the Word of God, &c. puts us in mind of the
nativity, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. . . .
For we do not fear. . . lest all the Churches of God
will condemn us herein. Those that consent with Geneva, nor
those of Scotland;. . . no nor any that follow Bucer's judgment
(in Matt. 12), I would to God that every Holy-day whatsoever
beside the Lord's Day, were abolished. That zeal which brought them
first in, was without all warrant of the Word, and merely followed
corrupt reason, forsooth to drive out the Holy days of the Pagans,
as one nail drives out another. Those Holy-days, have been so tainted
with superstition that I wonder we tremble not at their very names.
See the place, Oecolampadius (in Isa. 1:4), thinketh that no wise
Christian will condemn us. I never heard wise man yet, who did
not judge that a great part at least of other feasts besides the Lord's
Day should be abolished. --William Ames (Nonconformist minister,
exiled to the Netherlands; professor of theology at Franeker), A
Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in God's Worship (1633).
By communicating with idolaters in their rites and ceremonies, we
ourselves become guilty of idolatry. Even as Ahaz (2 Ki. 16:10) was
an idolater. . . that he took the pattern of an altar from
idolaters. Forasmuch then, as kneeling before the consecrated bread,
the sign of the cross, surplice, festival days, bishopping, bowing
to the altar, administration of the sacraments in private places,
&c. are the wares of Rome, the baggage of Babylon, the trinkets of
the Whore, the badges of Popery, the ensigns of Christ's enemies,
and the very trophies of Antichrist: we cannot conform, communicate,
and symbolize with the idolatrous Papists, in the use of the same,
without making ourselves idolaters by participation. Shall the chaste
Spouse of Christ take upon her the ornaments of the Whore? --George
Gillespie (Westminster divine), A Dispute Against the English
Popish Ceremonies (1637).
[H]ow can it be denied, that many corruptions, contrary to the purity
and liberty of the Gospel, were they never so innocent in themselves,
have accompanied these Novations, such as the superstitious
observing of Days, feriation and cessation from work,
on those days, Feasting-guising, &c. --Alexander Henderson
(Westminster divine) and David Dickson (professor of theology, Church
of Scotland), The Answers of Some Brethren of the Ministrie,
to the Replies of the Ministers and Professours of Divinitie in Aberdeene:
Concerning the Late Covenant (1638).
[Festival days are] an entrenching upon God's prerogative: for none
can appoint an holy day, but he who hath made the days, and
hath all power in his own hand, which is clear; first, from the denomination
of them in both Testaments; in the old they are called the solemn
feasts of Jehovah [Lev. 23:1; Ex. 32:5], not only because they were
to be kept to Jehovah, but also because they were of his appointing;
and so in the New Testament, as we read but of one [holy-day] for
the self-same reasons, it is called The Lord's Day [Rev.
1:10]. --John Bernard? (Nonconformist minister, England), The
Anatomy of the Service Book (1641).
This day is the day which is commonly called The Feast of Christ's
Nativity, or Christmas day: A day that hath been
heretofore much abused to superstition and prophaneness. It is not
easy to reckon whether the superstition hath been greater,
or the prophaneness. I have known some that have preferred Christmas
day before the Lord's Day, and have cried down
the Lord's Day, and cried up Christmas day.
I have known those that would be sure to receive the sacrament upon
Christmas day, though they did not receive it all the year after.
This and much more was the superstition of the day. And the prophaneness
was as great. Old Father Latimer saith in one of his
sermons, That the Devil had more service in the twelve Christmas holy
days (as they were called) than God had all the year after. . . .
There are some that though they did not play at cards all the year
long, yet they must play at Christmas; thereby, it seems, to keep
in memory the birth of Christ. This and much more hath been the profanation
of this feast. And truly I think that the superstition and profanation
of this day is so rooted into it, as that there is no way to reform
it but by dealing with it as Hezekiah did with the brazen
serpent. This year God by a Providence hath buried this
feast in a fast, and I hope it will never rise again. You have set
out (Right Honourable [House of Lords]) a strict order for the keeping
of it, and you are here this day to observe your own order, and I
hope you will do it strictly. The necessity of the times are great.
Never more need of prayer and fasting. The Lord give us grace to be
humbled in this day of humiliation for all our own, and England's
sins; and especially for the old superstition, and profanation of
this feast: always remembering upon such days as these, Isa. 22:12-14.--Edmund
Calamy (Westminster divine), An Indictment Against England Because
of her Selfe-Murdering Divisions (1645).
Festival days, vulgarly called holy-days, having no warrant in the
Word of God, are not to be continued. --Westminster Assembly, Directory
for Publick Worship (1645).
The General Assembly taking to their consideration the manifold abuses,
profanity, and superstitions, committed on Yule-day [Christ-mass]
and some other superstitious days following, have unanimously concluded
and hereby ordains, that whatsoever person or persons hereafter shall
be found guilty in keeping of the foresaid superstitious days, shall
be proceeded against by Kirk censures, and shall make their public
repentance therefore in the face of the congregation where the offence
is committed. And that the presbyteries and provincial synods take
particular notice how ministers try and censure delinquents of this
kind, within the several parishes. --General Assembly, Church of
Scotland, Act for Censuring Observers of Yule-day, and other
Superstitious days (1645).
Lascivious carousings, drunkenness, harlotry, come from observing
of holy days. . . . [Y]our [i.e., the prelates'] ceremonies
that break the sixth commandment, shall find no room in the fifth
commandment. Cause the fifth commandment [to] speak thus, if you can:
"Notwithstanding that crossing, kneeling, surplice, human holy
days occasion the soul murder of him for whom Christ died, yet we
the Prelates command the practice of the foresaid ceremonies as good
and expedient for edification, for our commandment maketh the murdering
of our brethren, to be obedience to the fifth commandment." But
if Prelates may command that which would otherwise, without, or before
the commandment, spiritual murdering and scandalizing our brother,
they may command also, that which would be otherwise without, or before
their command, adultery against the seventh, and theft against the
eighth, and perjury and lying against the ninth commandment, and concupiscence
against the tenth; for the fifth commandment hath the precedency before
the seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth commandments, no less than before
the sixth, which forbiddeth the killing of our brother's soul. . . .
What do our Doctors [the prelates] clatter and fable to us of a right
of justice, that mortal rulers have to command in things indifferent,
from which the destruction of souls doth arise? for these commandments
of rulers: kneel religiously before bread, the vicegerent image
of Christ crucified; keep human holy days; cross the air with your
thumb above a baptized infant's face, at best, are but positive
commandments, not warranted by God's word. But shall they be more
obligatory by a supposed band of justice that Prelates have over us
to command, such toy's then this divine law of God and Nature, Rom.
14. For indifferent days, meats, surplice, destroy not him for whom
Christ died?. . . We see not how the ceremonies are
left free to conscience, because they are alterable by the Church,
for [because] the reason of kneeling to bread, of human [holy] days,
of surplice, is moral, not national [i.e., they are ecclesiastical,
and therefore moral, not civil, and therefore national]. --Samuel
Rutherford, (Westminster divine), The Divine Right of Church
Government and Excommunication (1646).
surping Prelacy under it's shadow, did in the secret and holy judgment
of God, change the Glory of God and of our Lord Jesus into the Similitude
and Image of the Roman Beast, turning the Power of Godliness unto
Formality, his faithful Ministers into corrupt Hirelings, the Power
and Life of Preaching into Flattery and Vanity, the Substance of Religion
into empty and ridiculous Ceremonies, the Beauty and Purity of the
Ordinances into Superstitious Inventions of Kneeling, Crossing, Holy
Days and the like. . . . --James Stirling (minister, Church
of Scotland), Naphtali, or the Wrestlings of the Church of Scotland
for the Kingdom of Christ (1667).
1. That there can be no solemn setting apart of any day to any creature;
thus Saints' days are unlawful. For the Sabbath, or Day of Rest,
is to the Lord, and to none other, it being a peculiar piece of worship
to him who hath divided time betwixt his worship and our work. . . .
2. No man can institute any day, even to the true God, as a part of
worship, so as to bind the consciences to it, or to equal it with
this day [the Lord's day]. That is a part of God's royal prerogative,
and a thing peculiar to him to sanctify and bless a day.
3. Even those days which are pretended to be set apart to and for
God, and yet not as part of worship, cannot be imposed in a constant
and ordinary way (as Anniversary days and feasts are) because by an
ordinary rule God hath given to man six days for work, except in extraordinary
cases he shall please to call for some part of them again. --James
Durham (minister, Church of Scotland), The Law Unsealed (1675).
Dec. 25. Friday. Carts come to Town and Shops open as is usual. Some
somehow observe the day [Christ-mass]; but are vexed I believe that
the Body of the People profane it, and blessed be God no Authority
yet to compell them to keep it. --Samuel Sewall (judge, chief magistrate
of Boston), journal entry in The Heart of the Puritan (1685).
It is not a work but a word makes one day more holy than another.
There is no day of the week, but some eminent work of God has been
done therein; but it does not therefore follow that every day must
be kept as a Sabbath. The Lord Christ has appointed the first day
of the week to be perpetually observed in remembrance of his resurrection
and redemption. If more days than that had been needful, he would
have appointed more. It is a deep reflection on the wisdom of Christ,
to say, He has not appointed days enough for his own honour,
but he must be beholding to men for their additions. The Old
Waldenses witnessed against the observing of any holidays, besides
that which God in his Word hath instituted. Calvin, Luther, Danaeus,
Bucer, Farel, Viret, and other great Reformers, have wished that the
observation of all holidays, except the Lord's Day, were abolished.
A Popish writer complains that the Puritans in England were of the
same mind. So was John Huss and Jerome of Prague long ago. And the
Belgic Churches in their Synod, Anno 1578. The Apostle
condemns the observation of Jewish festivals in these days of the
New Testament, Gal. 4:10; Col. 2:16. Much less may Christians state
other days in their room. The Gospel has put an end to the difference
of days as well as of meats. And neither the Pope nor the Church can
make some days holy above others, no more than they can make the use
of some meats to be lawful or unlawful, both of which are expressly
contrary to the Scripture, Rom. 14:5,6. All stated holidays of man's
inventing, are breaches of the Second and of the Fourth Commandment.
A stated religious festival is a part of instituted worship. Therefore
it is not in the power of men, but God only, to make a day holy. --Increase
Mather (Nonconformist minister, New England), Testimony Against
Prophane Customs (1687).
Q. Is there any other day holy besides this day [i.e., the Lord's
day]?
A. No day but this is holy by institution of the Lord; yet days of
humiliation and thanksgiving may be lawfully set apart by men on a
call of providence; but popish holidays are not warrantable, nor to
be observed; Gal. 4:10. Ye observe days, and months, and times, and
years. --John Flavel (Nonconformist minister, Dartmouth, England),
An Exposition of the Assembly's Shorter Catechism (1692).
Q. 3. May not the Popish holy-days be observed?
A. The Popish holy-days ought not to be observed, because they are
not appointed in the Word; and, by the same reason, no other holy-days
may be kept, whatsoever pretence there be of devotion towards God,
when there is no precept or example for such practice in the holy
scripture. --Thomas Vincent (Nonconformist minister, London), An
Explicatory Catechism: or, An Explanation of the Assembly's Catechism (1708).
Instead of Endeavours to extirpate Superstition and Heresie,
as we are bound by the same Articles of the Solemn League,and
by the "National Covenant to Detaste [sic] all Superstition
and Heresie without or against the Word of God, and Doctrine of this
Reformed Kirk; according to the Scripture. . . Gal. 4:10.
Ye observe Days, and Months, and Times, and Years. . . .
Col. 2:23, Which things have indeed a shew of Wisdom
in Will-worship, and Humility, and neglecting of the Body, not in
any Honour to the satisfying of the Flesh. Tit. 3:10.
A Man that is an Heretick, after the first and second Admonition,
reject. Yet in the darkness of the times of Persecution, many Dregs
of Popish Superstition were observed, many Omens and
Freets too much looked to; Popish Festival days, as Pasche, Yule,
Fastings even, &c. have been kept by many. . . ." --John
M'Millan, of Balmaghie, et al., The National Covenant, and Solemn
League and Covenant, With the Acknowledgement of Sins and Engagement
to Duties: As they were Renewed at Douglass, July 24th, 1712, With
Accommodation to the Present Times (1712).
I do reckon the civil imposition of the Yule vacance not only unreasonable,
but an occasional inlet into the religious observation of the holydays,
since this is certainly the prima ratio legis, but very
burdensome and expensive to lieges. I hear endeavours will be used
to alter the law. --Robert Wodrow (minister and Scottish church
historian), Letter to Mr. John Williamson (1713).
The restoring of the Yule vacance, abolished at the Revolution, as
it carries in it a studied reflection upon the Reformation then attained
unto, so it is most senseless and superstitious in itself, an occasion
of much debauchery, and a great prejudice to the lieges, by stopping
the courts of justice; and it is most evident, that this and sundry
other things were hatched and promoted by ill-affected persons or
Jacobites, sent from among ourselves, for no other reason but merely
out of wantonness, to kick at our constitution, at the Revolution,
and at the glorious reign of King William our deliverer. --Robert
Wylie (minister, Church of Scotland) et al., Memorial of Grievances
to be Presented to the King (1714).
1. We think God has appointed one certain day in the week, for the
thankful remembrance of those mercies, which he has in common bestowed
upon us. Upon that therefore, as often as it returns, all Christians
are bound to employ themselves in meditating upon God's works of creation
and redemption, in praising God, and in other religious exercises.
Hence we judge it needless for men, by their authority, to appoint
other days of the same nature; and desire them, who usurp such a power,
to produce the commission they have for it.
2. It seems probable to us, that God would not have us observe these
yearly Holidays; because we meet with nothing in his word, whereby
we can fix the times of the year, when those things happened, which
our Adversaries pretend are the occasion of them. --James Peirce
(Nonconformist minister, Exon, England), A Vindication of the
Dissenters (1718).
Albeit there be an Act of Assembly 1645. Sess. ult. Ordering
all the Observers of superstitious Days, particularly Yule, &c.--to
be proceeded against by Kirk-Censure--the Guilty to make publick
Repentance for the same--before the Congregation where the Offence
is committed--Presbyteries--and Synods, to take particular Notice
how Ministers--censure Delinquents of this Kind, within the several
Parishes, &c. Yet this seems to be gone into Desuetude, seeing,
not only Masters of Schools and Colleges
are accessory to this superstitious Prophanity--by
granting Liberty or Vacancy to their Scholars at such Times; for which,
by Virtue of this Act, they ought to be summoned before
the Assembly, and censured according to their Trespass. But even the
Elders of this Church [the author means
the Revolution Church--the Church of Scotland], in many Places,
are guilty of observing Yule, and such as are ordinarily
Communicants, with Numbers of others in closs Communion
with this Church, and yet never one of these censured, but connived
at. And what if I should say, too many Ministers homologate
this sinful Custom? whereby, through Ministers Unfaithfulness, a young
up-rising Generation are left in Ignorance about the Sinfulness of
that, and other superstitious Days, &c. too, too much in Fashion in
our declining Days. --Andrew Clarkson (acting as clerk and compiler
for the United Societies, i.e., the Covenanters), Plain Reasons
for Presbyterians Dissenting from the Revolution-Church in Scotland (1731).
Dissenters . . . reject the consecrating churches, chapels,
cathedrals, priests, garments, altars, liturgies, singing service,
litanies, bowings, crossings, cringings, holy days, fasts, feasts,
vigils, because not one word of any of them is contained in our only
rule of faith. --Thomas DeLaune (English Nonconformist Baptist),
A Plea for the Non-Conformists (1733).
nstead of making progress in a work of reformation, we came in
a short time to fall under the weight of some new and
very heavy grievances: As for instance. . . . Countenance
is also given to a superstitious observation of holy-days,
by the vacation of our most considerable civil courts,
in the latter end of December. --Ebenezer
Erskine, William Wilson, Alexander Moncrieff, and James Fisher (founding
ministers of the Secession [Associate Presbyterian Church]), A
Testimony to the Doctrine, Worship, Government and Discipline of the
Church of Scotland (1734).
Q. Hath God appointed any other set times to be kept holy to
the Lord, besides the sabbath?
A. None but the Jewish festivals or ceremonial sabbaths, which being
only shadows of things to come, they expired with Christ's coming;
but the command for the weekly sabbath being moral, it continues still
in force, Col. 2:16,17; Gal. 4:9-11; 1 Cor. 16:1,2.
Q. Are we bound to keep the holy-days observed by others, such
as days for Christ's birth, passion and ascension; days dedicated
to angels, as Michaelmas; to the virgin Mary, as Candlemas; besides
many others dedicated to the apostles and other saints?
A. Though it be pretended that these days serve to promote piety and
devotion, yet we have no warrant from God to observe any of them;
nay, it appears to be unlawful to do it: for 1st, God doth quarrel
men for using any device of their own for promoting his service or
worship, without having his command or warrant for it, as in Deut.
12:32; Isa. 1:12; Jer. 7:30. 2ndly, the apostle Paul doth expressly
condemn the Galatians for observing such holy days, Gal. 4:10,11.
3dly, It is a disparaging of the Lord's day which God hath appointed,
and a usurping of his legislative power, for men to set days of their
appointing on a level with his day, as the institutors do, by hindering
people to labor thereupon. 4thly, It is an idolatrous practice to
consecrate days to the honor of saints and angels, for commemorating
their acts, and publishing their praise; such honor and worship being
due to God alone.
Q. Were not these days appointed by the ancient church, and
authorized by great and holy men?
A. It was will-worship in them, seeing they had no power to institute
holy-days: for, 1st, Under the law, when ceremonies and festivals
were in use, the church appointed none of them, but God himself. 2dly,
We read nothing of the apostles appointing or observing such holy-days;
not a word of their consecrating a day for Christ's birth, his passion,
or ascension; nor a day to Stephen the proto-martyr, nor to James,
whom Herod killed with the sword. We read of the apostles observing
the Lord's day, and keeping it holy, but not of any other. 3dly, These
other days are left unrecorded, and uncertain, and so are concealed
like the body of Moses, that men might not be tempted to abuse them
to superstition. 4thly, These days have not the divine blessing upon
them; for they are the occasions of much looseness and immorality.
5thly, Though the observing of these days had been indifferent or
lawful at first, yet the defiling of them with superstition and intemperance
should make all forbear them. --John Willison (minister, Church
of Scotland), An Example of Plain Catechising, Upon the Assembly's
Shorter Catechism (1737).
Q. May the church appoint holy days, to remember Christ's
birth, death, temptation, ascension, &c.?--A. No; as God hath abolished
the Jewish holy days of his own appointment, so he hath given no warrant
to the church to appoint any: but hath commanded us to labour six
days, except when Providence calls us to humiliation or thanksgiving;
and expressly forbids us to observe holy days of men's appointment,
Col. 2:16; Gal. 4:10,11.
Q. What is the difference between a fast day and a holy day?--A.
The day of a fast is changeable, and esteemed no better in itself
than another day; but a holy day is fixed to a certain time of the
week, year, or moon, and reckoned better in itself. --John Brown,
of Haddington (minister and professor, Associate [Presbyterian] Burgher
Synod), An Essay Towards an Easy, Plain, Practical, and Extensive
Explication of the Assembly's Shorter Catechism (1758).
Not to insist further in enumerating particulars, the presbytery finally
testify [sic] against church and state, for their negligence
to suppress impiety, vice, and superstitious observance of holy days,
&c. The civil powers herein acting directly contrary to the nature
and perverting the very ends of the magistrate's office, which is
to be custos et vindex utriusque tabulae; the minister
of God, a revenger, to execute wrath on him that doeth evil. Transgressors
of the first table of the law may now sin openly with impunity; and,
while the religious observation of the sabbath is not regarded, the
superstitious observation of holy days, even in Scotland,
is so much authorized, that on some of them the most considerable
courts of justice are discharged to sit. --The Reformed Presbytery
(Covenanters), Act, Declaration, and Testimony, for the Whole
of our Covenanted Reformation, as Attained to, and Established in
Britain and Ireland, Particularly Betwixt the Years 1638 and 1649,
Inclusive. As, Also, Against all the Steps of Defection from Said
Reformation, Whether in Former or Latter Times, Since the Overthrow
of that Glorious Work, Down to this Present Day (1761).
Q. Is there any warrant for anniversary, or stated holidays,
now, under the New Testament?
A. No: these under the Old, being abrogated by the death
and resurrection of Christ, there is neither precept nor example in
scripture, for any of the yearly holidays observed by Papists, and
others: on the contrary, all such days are condemned in bulk, Gal.
4:10; Col. 2:16,17.
Q. What crimes doth the observation of them import?
A. The observation of them imports no less than an impeachment
of the institutions of God, concerning his worship, as if they were
imperfect; and an encroachment upon the liberty wherewith Christ hath
made his church and people free, Col. 3:20. --James Fisher (minister,
Associate [Presbyterian] Burgher Synod), Westminster Assembly's
Shorter Catechism Explained (1765).
The public worship of God is grievously corrupted, in England and Ireland,
--by a multitude of superstitious inventions. . . . A great many
devised holidays, saints days, fasts and festivals, are likewise observed;
with peculiar offices for the same. --Adam Gib (minister, Associate
[Presbyterian] Anti-Burgher), The Present Truth: A Display of the
Secession Testimony, Vol. 2 (1774).
Men cannot, without sin, appoint any holy days. (1.) God has marked
the weekly sabbath with peculiar honour, in his command
and word. But, if men appoint holy days, they detract from its honour;
and wherever holy days of men's appointment are much observed, God's
weekly sabbath is much profaned, Ex. 20:8; Ezek. 43:8. (2.) God never
could have abolished his own ceremonial holy days, in order that men
might appoint others of their own invention, in their room, Col. 2:16-23;
Gal. 4:10,11. (3.) God alone can bless holy days, and render them
effectual to promote holy purposes; and we have no hint in his word,
that he will bless any appointed by men, Ex. 20:11. (4.) By permitting,
if not requiring us, to labour six days of the week in
our worldly employments, this commandment excludes all holy days of
men's appointment; Ex. 20:8,9. If it permit six days
for our worldly labour, we ought to stand fast in that liberty with
which Christ hath made us free, Gal. 5:1; 1 Cor. 7:23; Matt. 15:9.
If it require them, we ought to obey God rather than
men, Acts 4:19; 5:29.--Days of occasional fasting and thanksgiving
are generally marked out by the providence of God: and the observation
of them does not suppose any holiness in the day itself, Joel 1:14;
2:15; Acts 13:2; 14:23; Matt. 9:15. --John Brown, of Haddington
(minister and professor, Associate [Presbyterian] Burgher Synod),
A Compendious View of Natural and Revealed Religion (1796).
We therefore condemn the following errors, and testify
against all who maintain them:
1. "That any part of time is appointed in divine revelation, or
may be appointed by the church, to be kept holy, in its weekly, monthly,
or annual returns, except the first day of the week, which is the
Christian Sabbath." --Reformed Presbyterian Church in America
(Covenanters), Reformation Principles Exhibited (1806).
That the Lord's day is the only day appointed by God to be kept holy,
though he allows us to set days apart, on proper occasions, for fasting
and thanksgiving. Those days which, by men now under the New Testament
are called festival or holy days, have no warrant from the word, and
are superstitious. Ex. 20:8; Matt. 9:14,15; 28:20; Col. 2:20-23; Matt.
15:7-9. --Reformed Dissenting Presbytery, An Act, Declaration
and Testimony, of the Reformed Dissenting Presbyterian Church, in
North America (1808).
It is our duty to attend faithfully and industriously to that secular
business which is incumbent on us, during the six last days of the
week, and not to institute or observe sabbaths of human invention;
that we may be prepared for the sanctification of the Lord's sabbath.
"Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work." Gal. 4:10,11.
"Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed labour upon you in vain."
--Ezra Stiles Ely (pastor, Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.),
A Synopsis of Didactic Theology (1822).
[The Waldenses] contemn all approved ecclesiastical customs which
they do not read of in the gospel, such as the observance of Candlemas,
Palm Sunday, Good Friday, and the feast of Easter. . . .
--William Sime, History of the Waldenses (1827).
Under the old dispensation, there were a number of days appointed
for ceremonial observances. The Jews kept thirty-five in the year,
but of these some fell on the Sabbath. While the Mosaic economy lasted,
and while they remained in Palestine, these were to be observed; but
at the death of Christ they passed away. Hence the apostle says to
the primitive Christians, "Let no man judge you in meat, or in
drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the
Sabbath day" (Col. 2:16), or the Jewish Sabbath, on the seventh
day of the week, which was now merged in the first. This shews how
little they understand the liberty of the gospel, who prescribe for
the observance of Christians, a variety of holy days, which are unauthorized
in Scripture, and are found in experience to be lost in idleness,
or abused in folly. Such days, originating in secular policy, or superstitious
excitement, may be marked by names and rites solemn and imposing;
yet, wanting the sanction of Jehovah, and the animating breath of
heaven, they are soon disregarded as empty forms, hated as encumbrances
on public industry, and welcomed only by those whose situation makes
them wish for a season and a pretext for amusement and dissipation.
--Henry Belfrage (minister, Associate [Presbyterian] Burgher Synod),
A Practical Exposition of the Assembly's Shorter Catechism (1834).
[M]en have no right to institute holidays, which return as regularly
at certain intervals as the Sabbath does in the beginning of the week.
This is an assumption of authority which God has not delegated to
them. Holidays are an encroachment upon the time of which he has made
a free gift to men for their worldly affairs. . . . --John
Dick (minister, United Associate Congregation; professor, United Secession
Theological Seminary), Lectures on Theology (1835).
We believe that the Scriptures not only do not warrant the observance
of such days [i.e., "holy" days], but that they positively
discountenance it. Let any one impartially weigh Colossians 2:16,
and also, Galatians 4:9-11; and then say whether these passages do
not evidently indicate, that the inspired Apostle disapproved of the
observance of such days. --Samuel Miller (professor, Princeton
Theological Seminary, Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.), Presbyterianism:
The Truly Primitive and Apostolic Constitution of the Church of Christ
(1836).
[W]e testify against the celebration of Christmas, or other festivals
of the Papal or Episcopal church. --Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian
Church of Scotland, Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church
in Scotland: Historical and Doctrinal (1837).
From what has been said, we may infer that this passage of Scripture
gives no countenance to religious festivals, or holidays of human
appointment, especially under the New Testament. Feasts appear to
have been connected with sacrifices from the most ancient times; but
the observance of them was not brought under any fixed rules until
the establishment of the Mosaic law. Religious festivals formed a
noted and splendid part of the ritual of that law; but they were only
designed to be temporary; and having served their end in commemorating
certain great events connected with the Jewish commonwealth, and in
typifying certain mysteries now clearly revealed by the gospel, they
ceased, and, along with other figures, vanished away. To retain these,
or to return them after the promulgation of the Christian law, or
to imitate them by instituting festivals of a similar kind, is to
doat on shadows--to choose weak and beggarly elements--to bring
ourselves under a yoke of bondage which the Jews were unable to bear,
and interpretatively to fall from grace and the truth of the gospel.
"Ye observe days and months, and times and years. I am afraid
of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain." "Let
no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of
an holiday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days, which are
a shadow of things to come." 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? Yet the Christian church soon
degenerated so far as to bring herself under a severer bondage than
that from which Christ had redeemed her, and instituted a greater
number of festivals than were observed under the Mosaic law, or even
among pagans.
To seek a warrant for days of religious commemoration under the gospel
from the Jewish festivals, is not only to overlook the distinction
between the old and new dispensations, but to forget that the Jews
were never allowed to institute such memorials for themselves, but
simply to keep those which infinite Wisdom had expressly and by name
set apart and sanctified. The prohibitory sanction is equally strict
under both Testaments: "What thing soever I command you, observe
to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it."
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 afterwards 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 the 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. On these
grounds they were rejected from the beginning, among other corruptions
of antichrist, by the reformed church of Scotland, which allowed no
stated religious days but the Christian Sabbath. --Thomas M'Crie
(minister, Associate Anti-Burgher/Constitutional Associate Presbytery;
author and church historian), Lectures on the Book of Esther (1838).
It is notorious, that wherever other days than the Sabbath are religiously
observed, there that holy day is less strictly observed than its nature
demands--less strictly than it is generally observed by those who
regard it as the only set time which God has commanded
to be kept holy. It is also notorious, that holy days, as they are
called, are times at which every species of vice and disorder is more
flagrantly and more generally indulged in, than at any other time;
so that these days are really and highly injurious to civil society,
as well as an encroachment on the prerogative of God. --Ashbel
Green (minister, Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.), Lectures
on the Shorter Catechism (1841).
Stated festival-days, commonly called holy-days, have
no warrant in the Word of God; but a day may be set apart, by competent
authority, for fasting or thanksgiving when extraordinary dispensations
of Providence administer cause for them. When judgments are threatened
or inflicted, or when some special blessing is to be sought and obtained,
fasting is eminently seasonable. --Robert Shaw (minister, Free
Church of Scotland), An Exposition of the Confession of Faith (1845).
Is it innocent and allowable to observe the Passover, (or Easter),
the Pentecost, or the Nativity of our Saviour, (Christmas) . . . ?
Ans. No; Not even when the observance is left optional with the people;
because, (1.) The Passover and the Pentecost are, by the introduction
of the new dispensation, laid aside, as typical observances. (2.)
The observance of them was partly in accommodation to the early Jewish
believers, partly to please pagans with outward parade of worship,
in compensation for the loss of their heathen observances, and partly
by a declining church, that wished to substitute outward worship for
that which is spiritual. (3.) There is no need of them in order to
promote religion. The observance of them is will-worship, and will
tend to the decline of religion. (4.) Christmas, or the Nativity,
is unauthorized. The time is utterly unknown, being left in impenetrable
darkness by the Holy Spirit in the divine records; and no doubt this
was done because the knowledge of it was unnecessary, and in order
to repress will-worship. In a word, while fast-days are appointed
on account of the duty to be performed, in set days, or periodical
days, the duty is observed on account of the day; and therefore the
day must be of divine appointment, or it is sinful.--Abraham Anderson
(minister and professor, Associate Presbyterian Church), Lectures
on Theology (1851).
Under the Jewish economy there were other set times and modes of worship,
which were abolished when the Christian economy was introduced. Since
then no holidays (holy days) but the Sabbath, are of
divine authority or obligation. . . . --James R. Boyd (minister,
Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.), The Westminster Shorter
Catechism (1854).
To those who believe in this form of regimen [keeping the Sabbath
as a holy day of rest] it forms "the golden hours" of time;
and finding no command nor fair deduction from Scripture warranting
them to keep any other day, whether (in honor of the Saxon goddess
Eostre, that is, the Prelatic) "Easter," "the Holy Innocents,"
or of "St. Michael and all the angels," they believe that
"festival days, vulgarly called holydays, having
no warrant in the word of God, are not to be observed." --Alexander
Blaikie (minister, Associate Reformed Church), The Philosophy
of Sectarianism (1854).
No human power can make it unlawful for men to pursue their industrial
avocations during the six secular days. The New Testament plainly
discourages the attempt to fill up the calendar with holidays, Gal.
4:9-11; Col. 2:16-23. Even days of fasting or thanksgiving are not
holy days; but they are a part of secular time voluntarily devoted
to God's service. And if we are to perform these things at all, we
must take some time for them. Yet none but God can sanctify a day
so as to make it holy. The attempt to do this was one of the sins
of Jeroboam, 1 Kings 12:33. --William S. Plumer (professor, Columbia
Theological Seminary, Presbyterian Church in the U.S.), The
Law of God, As Contained in the Ten Commandments (1864).
In keeping the last day of the week as a day of religious observance,
the Jews, by the very act, expressed their religious acknowledgment
of God, who had appointed it, and did an act of worship to Him as
its author, in the character of one Creator who made the heavens and
the earth. In keeping the first day of the week now, Christians, by
the very act, recognise Christ as the author of it, and do homage
to Him as the one Redeemer, who on that day rose from the dead, and
secured the salvation of His people. . . . And who does not see, that
upon the very same principle the observance of holidays appointed
by the Church, as ordinary and stated parts of Divine worship, is
an expression of religious homage to man, who is the author of the
appointment,--an unlawful acknowledgment of human or ecclesiastical
authority in an act of worship. In keeping, after a religious sort,
a day that has no authority but man's, we are paying a religious homage
to that authority; we are bowing down, in the very act of our observance
of the days as part of worship, not to Christ, who has not appointed
it, but to the Church, which has. We are keeping the season holy,
not to God, but to man. --James Bannerman (professor, New College,
Free Church of Scotland), The Church of Christ (1869).
Festival days, vulgarly called holy days, having no warrant in the
word of God, are not to be observed. --Synod of the Associate Reformed
Church in North America, The Constitution and Standards of the
Associate Reformed Church in North America (1874).
The [Dutch] Reformed churches had been in the habit of keeping Christmas,
Easter and Whitsuntide [Pentecost] as days of religious worship. The
synod [Provincial Synod of Dordrecht, 1574] enjoined the churches
to do this no longer, but to be satisfied with Sundays for divine
service. --Maurice G. Hansen (historian, Reformed Church in America),
The Reformed Church in the Netherlands (1884).
To take the ground that the church has a discretionary power to appoint
other holy days and other symbolical rites is to concede to Rome the
legitimacy of her five superfluous sacraments and all her self-devised
paraphernalia of sacred festivals. There is no middle ground. Either
we are bound by the Lord's appointments in his Word, or human discretion
is logically entitled to the full-blown license of Rome. --John
L. Girardeau (professor, Columbia Theological Seminary, Presbyterian
Church in the U.S.), Instrumental Music in the Public Worship
of the Church (1888).
The Protestant Church is fast returning to the heathen ceremonies
of the Church of Rome, vieing with her in the observance of "Easter
Sunday," etc. By means of Christmas trees, Santa Claus is becoming
a greater reality and the object of more affection to children than
the Saviour himself. --Reformed Presbyterian Church (Covenanter),
Minutes of the General Meeting (1889).
That Christians did observe sacred days in the apostle's time these
writers [i.e., those who deny the divine sanction and authority of
the Lord's day] admit, and also that the usage was approved. But they
say it was not founded on any divine authority; the apostle had just
repealed all that. Then on whose authority? That of the uninspired
church. Their view, then, is that the apostle, sweeping away all Sabbaths
and Lord's days, invites Christians to ascend to his lofty and devoted
experience, which had no use for a set Sabbath because all his days
were consecrated. But as it was found that this did not suit the actual
Christian state of most Christians, human authority was allowed, and
even encouraged, to appoint Sundays, Easters and Whitsuntides for
them. The objections are: first, that this countenances 'will-worship,'
or the intrusion of man's inventions into God's service; second, it
is an implied insult to Paul's inspiration, assuming that he made
a practical blunder, which the church synods, wiser than his inspiration,
had to mend by a human expedient; and third, we have here a practical
confession that, after all, the average New Testament Christian does
need a stated holy day, and therefore the ground of the Sabbath command
is perpetual and moral. --Robert L. Dabney (professor, Union Theological
Seminary, Virginia; Theological School at Austin, Texas; University
of Texas; Presbyterian Church in the U.S.), "The Christian Sabbath,"
in Discussions, Vol. 1 (1890).
[T]hose who quote those portions of Scripture in opposition to the
idea of a divine obligation on Christians to observe the Sabbath are
found for the most part, in one section of the Church, and as members
or dignitaries therein they are very far from being consistent. Their
reasoning on behalf of their theory and their practice are diametrically
opposed. If the Apostle Paul were permitted to revisit earth, we might
imagine him addressing them somewhat after the following manner:--'Ye
men of a half-reformed Church, ye observe days and times. Ye have
a whole calendar of so-called saints' days. Ye observe a Holy Thursday
and a Good Friday. Ye have a time called Easter, and a season called
Lent, about which some of you make no small stir. Ye have a day regarded
especially holy, named Christmas, observed at a manifestly wrong season
of the year, and notoriously grafted on an old Pagan festival. And
all this while many of you refuse to acknowledge the continued obligation
of the Fourth Commandment. I am afraid of you, lest the instruction
contained in my epistle, as well as in other parts of Scripture, has
been bestowed upon you in vain.' --Robert Nevin (minister, Reformed
Presbyterian Church in Ireland and editor of the Covenanter
Magazine in Ireland), Misunderstood Scriptures (1893).
Q. 49. What are some of the festival seasons of the Church of
Rome?
A. They are very numerous; among them the following are the most prominent:
--Christmas, Lady Day, Lent, Easter, and the Feast of the Assumption.
Q. 50. What is the meaning of Christmas?
A. It is a festival held on the 25th of December, in honour of the
birth of Christ. On this day three Masses are performed: one at midnight,
one at daybreak, and one in the morning.
Q. 51 When was this festival introduced?
A. The spurious decretals attributed its institution to Telesphorus,
Bishop of Rome, in the first half of the second century; but the Fathers
of the first three centuries make no mention of it.
Q. 52. What is its most probable origin?
A. That it was not Christian is manifest from the fact that the day
on which the feast is observed could not have been the day of Christ's
birth, inasmuch as from December to February is the cold and rainy
season in Palestine, when the shepherds could not have been "keeping
watch over their flocks by night." The festival is to be traced
partly to the tendency in the fourth century to multiply such seasons,
and, by introducing a festival for each period in Christ's life, to
complete "the Christian year," and partly to the growing tendency
in the church to conciliate the heathen by adopting their religious
customs.
Q. 53. Are there any features in the Christmas festival that
point to a Pagan origin?
A. There are several: the name, the time of its observance, and the
ceremonies associated with it.
Q. 54. Explain these features in detail.
A. The name "Yule Day," given to Christmas, is Pagan. According
to some the word Yule is derived from huel, a wheel, and was meant
to designate the Pagan sun feast in commemoration of the turn of the
sun and the lengthening of the day. According to others it was the
Chaldee name for "infant," and was meant to designate the
feast in honour of the birth of the son of the Babylonian Queen of
Heaven. The time indicates a Pagan origin, for it was at the time
of the winter solstice that the Pagan festival just referred to was
celebrated. The ceremonies of the "Drunken festival" of Babylon
have their counterpart in the wassail bowl and the revels that in
all Popish countries have been characteristic of Christmas.
Q. 55. Is this festival warranted in Scripture?
A. No. The Scriptures are silent regarding the day and month of Christ's
birth, and it is admitted by the best writers that the precise day
cannot now be ascertained from any source. Christ commanded His disciples
to commemorate His death, but He gave no command concerning
His birth. --John M'Donald (minister, Reformed Presbyterian
Church of Scotland; member, Scottish Reformation Society), Romanism
Analysed in the Light of Scripture, Reason, and History (1894).
There is a ritualism against which George Gillespie delivered a destructive
blow by his work on "English-Popish Ceremonies Obtruded on the
(Reformed) Church of Scotland"--the ritualism of saints' days
and holy days--and in which he described these and other ceremonies
as the "twigs and spriggs of Popish superstition." These and
other similar rites and ceremonies have been repudiated by the Presbyterianism
of this northern kingdom without a dissentient voice for the last
300 years. . . . If a number of ministers in Presbyterian charges
where no ritualism exists were to resolve to ritualise and Romanise
their congregations, could they adopt better measures than those in
operation by ritualists? Their plan of campaign would be marked by
the following stages at considerable intervals:--adverse comments
on the simplicity of the worship observed; . . . introduction of saints'
days and holy days, including Ash Wednesday, Maunday Thursday, Good
Friday, Holy Saturday, and Easter Sunday; . . . Would they not be
toying all this time with the trinkets of Babylon? --Dr. James
Kerr (pastor, Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland), "The
Scriptural Doctrines Violated by Ritualism," in Romanism
and Ritualism in Great Britain and Ireland (1895).
[Things forbidden by the fourth commandment]: The erection and regular
observance of other holy days. Had God seen their regular recurrence
was desirable they would have been appointed. Their use has been spiritually
damaging. They often become centers of ceremonialism and sensual worship.
--J. A. Grier, (professor, Allegheny Theological Seminary, United
Presbyterian Church), Synoptical Lectures on Theological Subjects (1896).
There is no warrant in Scripture for the observance of Christmas and
Easter as holy days, rather the contrary (see Gal. 4:9-11; Col. 2:16-21),
and such observance is contrary to the principles of the Reformed
Faith, conducive to will worship, and not in harmony with the simplicity
of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. --General Assembly of the Presbyterian
Church in the United States (Southern Presbyterians), Deliverance
on Christmas and Easter (1899).
Q. 7. Is it not a daring intrusion upon the prerogative of God to
appoint as a stated religious festival any other day or season, such
as Christmas or Easter?
A. It is an impeachment of the wisdom of God and an assertion of our
right and ability to improve on his plans. --James Harper (professor,
Xenia Theological Seminary, United Presbyterian Church), An
Exposition in the Form of Question and Answer of the Westminster Assembly's
Shorter Catechism (1905).
The observance of Holy Days had been rejected at the Reformation,
and the people of Scotland desired no change [as mandated by the Perth
Articles passed in 1618]. . . . An Order in June 1619 commanded
universal obedience to the Articles. . . . So strong was the
opposition that little impression was made by such proceedings. . . .
The general result was that only a small minority, and these chiefly
official persons, kneeled at Communion or observed Easter or Christmas;
even this was due simply out of deference to the king's wishes. --Sheriff
Orr, Alexander Henderson: Churchman and Statesman (1919).
Festival days, commonly called holy-days, having no warrant in the
Word, are not to be observed. --Associate Reformed Presbyterian
Synod, Constitution of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (1937).
In former times the Reformed Presbyterian Church was solidly opposed
to the religious observance of Christmas, Easter and other special
days of the same kind. . . . [W]e should realize that we Covenanters,
in opposing the observance of Easter and other "holy" days,
are only holding to the original principle which was once held by
all Presbyterians everywhere. It is not the Covenanters
that have changed. . . . [T]he apostle Paul regards this observance
of days as a bad tendency: "I am afraid of (for) you, lest I have bestowed upon you
labor in vain.". . . Paul wondered what was wrong with their
religious knowledge and experience, that they should have become so zealous
for the observance of days. --J. G. Vos (minister, Reformed Presbyterian
Church of North America), "The Observance of Days" in Blue Banner
Faith and Life (1947).
Here I am alone in the library and apparently everyone has gone from
Machen Hall until Friday morning. Now it is 9:30 p.m. on Wednesday.
You may think this dismal. Well, I love it. It is a delightful change
from the usual stir. I have had two good days in the Library. Monday
was taken up with committee meetings, forenoon and afternoon. I hope
to be here all day tomorrow. I have not even accepted a dinner engagement
for what they call 'Christmas.' I hate the whole business. --John
Murray (professor, Westminster Seminary, Orthodox Presbyterian Church),
"Letter to Valerie Knowlton, Dec. 24, 1958," in Collected
Writings, Vol. 3 (1958).
1. What was originally the conviction of the churches in regard
to the holy days?
The Reformers such as Calvin, Farel, Viret, Bucer and John Knox were
opposed to observing the holy days.
2. What were their motives for this?
a. That they were not divine but human institutions.
b. That they brushed aside the importance of Sunday.
c. That they gave occasion to licentious and heathen festivities.
3. What then did they prefer in regard to preaching the facts
of Christ's birth, death, etc.?
That it be done on regular Sundays. On the Sunday before Christmas
the Christmas story was preached, etc.
4. How is it then that the ecclesiastical synods still made provision
for the observance of the holy days?
a. They did so as a concession to the Authorities, which clung tenaciously
to the holy days as vacation days for the people.
b. The churches permitted the ministers to preach on these holy days
in order to change a useless and unprofitable idleness into a holy
and profitable exercise.--K. DeGier (minister, Netherlands Reformed Church,
the Hague; teacher, Theological School at Rotterdam), Explanation of the
Church Order of Dordt (1968).
It is just this attitude of indifference to the Constitution that
has brought us to the state we are in in the P.C.U.S. Whereas, earlier,
as is reflected in the 1899 deliverance about Christmas and Easter,
there was meticulous concern for staying with the standards, and the
strict interpretation of Scripture on even such a matter as these
two days. Now there is a complete reversal to the point of adopting
the liturgical calendar of past tradition, without any Biblical basis.
--Morton Smith (professor, Greenville Theological Seminary, Presbyterian
Church in America), How is the Gold Become Dim (1973).
Holy Days. The Free Presbyterian Church rejects the modern
custom becoming so prevalent in the Church of Scotland, of observing
Christmas and Easter. It regards the observance of these days as symptomatic
of the trend in the Church of Scotland towards closer relations with
Episcopacy. At the time of the Reformation in Scotland all these festivals
were cast out of the Church as things that were not only unnecessary
but unscriptural. --Committee appointed by the Synod of the Free
Presbyterian Church, History of the Free Presbyterian Church
of Scotland. 1893-1970 (ca. 1974).
Recently denominations that never had calendars before were induced
by the National Council of Churches to adopt the practice. . . .
How can such non-biblical forms of worship be defended? The Puritan
principle, that is, the Biblical command, is that in worship we should
neither add to nor subtract from the divine requirements. . . .
[Professor] James Benjamin Green, Studies in the Holy Spirit (Revell, 1936),
has urged Christians to celebrate Pentecost: "There are three great days in the
Christian year: Christmas, Easter, and Whitsunday, and we are not true to
our faith when we allow Whitsunday to fall into the background. . . .
It has ranked with Christmas and Easter. The three together
are the three throned days of the Christian year."
It is amazing that a professor in a Presbyterian seminary should be
so Romish and anti-Reformed. Scripture gives us our rules for worship,
and, to repeat, from them we should not subtract, nor to them should
we add. We should turn neither to the left nor to the right. Now,
Scripture does not authorize us to celebrate Pentecost. The same is
true of Christmas. It began as a drunken orgy and continues so today
in office parties. The Puritans even made its celebration a civil
offense. And yet an argument for celebrating Pentecost was, "Don't
all Christians celebrate Christmas and Easter?" No, they do not.
My father's family and church never celebrated Christmas, nor did
the two Blanchard administrations in Wheaton College. But what about
Easter? Surely we must celebrate Easter, shouldn't we? Yes indeed,
we should, as the Scripture commands, not just once a year in the
spring, but fifty-two times a year. --Gordon H. Clark (professor,
Covenant College, Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod),
The Holy Spirit (1993).
Christmas, Good Friday, and Easter are Romish sacred days. By this
we mean that they have their source in Roman Catholic tradition, rather
than in Scripture. . . . [T]here have been times in the history
of the Reformed churches when the truth on the subject of sacred days
received reverent attention. Already, before John Calvin arrived in
Geneva at the time of the great Reformation, the observance of Romish
sacred days had been discontinued there. This had been done under
the leadership of Guillaume Farel and Peter Viret. But Calvin was
in hearty agreement. It is well known that when these traditional
days came along on the calendar, Calvin did not pay the slightest
attention to them. He just went right on with his exposition of whatever
book of the Bible he happened to be expounding. The Reformers, Knox
and Zwingli, agreed with Calvin. So did the entire Reformed church
of Scotland and Holland. At the Synod of Dort in 1574 it was agreed
that the weekly Sabbath alone should be observed, and that the observance
of all other days should be discouraged. This faithful Biblical practice
was later compromised. But that does not change the fact that the
Reformed churches originally stood for the biblical principle. The
original stand of the Reformed churches was Scriptural. That is the
important thing. --G. I. Williamson (minister, Orthodox Presbyterian
Church), On the Observance of Sacred Days (n.d.).
