# Xmas, Puritans, Reformers and Covenanters NOT FOR DEBATE



## Christusregnat

Hello All,

This thread is not for debate.

I am interested in the following, if anyone is able:

1. Quotations from Reformers, Puritans and Covenanters on Christmas.

2. Historical instances of magistrates taking actions against Christmas (for instance, I seem to recall Geneva banning Christmas).

3. Specific books touching on the subject.


Thanks!


----------



## au5t1n

Yay! Looks like I get to post this again:



> "And herewith I shall end this year. Only I shall remember one passage more, rather of mirth than of weight. 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 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 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, Of Plymouth Plantation, 1620-1647



This will be an interesting thread.

-----Added 12/11/2009 at 11:39:28 EST-----

This old thread has some references: http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/calvins-christmas-observance-27446/


----------



## Christusregnat

austinww said:


> This will be an interesting thread.



I trust it will! But NO FUNNY BUSINESS!!


----------



## au5t1n

Christusregnat said:


> I trust it will! But NO FUNNY BUSINESS!!



I simply wouldn't dream of it.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Adam, for some quotations and I think the date for Parliament outlawing xmas in England for a time, see http://www.naphtali.com/articles/ch...-and-‘holy-days’-in-american-presbyterianism/


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

Christusregnat said:


> Hello All,
> 
> This thread is not for debate.
> 
> I am interested in the following, if anyone is able:
> 
> 1. Quotations from Reformers, Puritans and Covenanters on Christmas.



Though neither properly regarded as Reformer, Puritan or Covenanter, invariably when this subject comes up, Spurgeon is often cited. Here are a couple of quotes I find intersting.



> When it can be proved that the observance of Christmas, Whitsuntide, and other Popish festivals was ever instituted by a divine statute, we also will attend to them, but not till then. It is as much our duty to reject the traditions of men, as to observe the ordinances of the Lord. We ask concerning every rite and rubric, "Is this a law of the God of Jacob?" and if it be not clearly so, it is of no authority with us, who walk in Christian liberty.


 -- Charles Spurgeon's Treasury of David on Psalm 81:4.




> We have no superstitious regard for times and seasons. Certainly we do not believe in the present ecclesiastical arrangement called Christmas: first, because we do not believe in the mass at all, but abhor it, whether it be said or sung in Latin or in English; and, secondly, because we find no Scriptural warrant whatever for observing any day as the birthday of the Savior; and, consequently, its observance is a superstition, because not of divine authority.


 -- Charles Spurgeon, Sermon on Dec. 24, 1871.

But here's a quote from a good Puritan:



> "The generality of Christmas-keepers observe that festival after such a manner as is highly dishonourable to the name of Christ. How few are there comparatively that spend those holidays (as they are called) after an holy manner. But they are consumed in Compotations, in Interludes, in playing at Cards, in Revellings, in excess of Wine, in mad Mirth ...


 -- Increase Mather, 1687


----------



## jogri17

So it sounds like there is a general concensus biblically and historically however then why do our churches continue to make xmas a part of our services and why do we continue to just accept this and there is no call to reform or are reformed churches just slaves to tradition? I can make a note that The Reformed Church in France has always celebrated xmas in order to make itself look good infront of a vast majority roman catholic country.


----------



## Herald

Christusregnat said:


> Hello All,
> 
> This thread is not for debate.
> 
> I am interested in the following, if anyone is able:
> 
> 1. Quotations from Reformers, Puritans and Covenanters on Christmas.
> 
> 2. Historical instances of magistrates taking actions against Christmas (for instance, I seem to recall Geneva banning Christmas).
> 
> 3. Specific books touching on the subject.
> 
> 
> Thanks!



What's Xmas? Is it a holiday for end-of-the-alphabet consonants?


----------



## jogri17

Did not I just ask the exact same question by creating the exact same thread just yesterday?


----------



## lynnie

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.)._


----------



## Christusregnat

Lynnie,

I wish I had more thankses!!!!!!!! THANKS!

Thank you all for your quotations, I think I found what I need.

God bless, and merry Xmas!


----------



## SolaSaint

All I ask is not to replace Christ in Christmas with "X" Thank You.


----------



## lynnie

You are very welcome. My all time favorite is John Murray "I hate the whole business." 

We started out with zero Christmas but then kids came along, and eventually Christian school. The programs, the parties, the whole works. And all the PCA churches I know of have a lot of Christmas activities. First time I saw advent candles I was shocked, even the Calvinist Baptists didn't do that. 

Still don't do the tree thing but I hang up pretty strands of light in the living room. And eventually broke down started getting the kids presents. Now don't flame me too badly  

Those quotes are convicting. I can say I want to submit myself to the wisdom of the Reformers, but when I read those quotes I see myself still partly in Rome. 

And a very merry Christ mass to you too


----------



## ChristopherPaul

lynnie:

I have not gone through all your helpful quotes, but I am pretty sure all Reformed churches do not view xmas as a special holy day and that is what many of the anti-xmas quotes refer to - treating the day as an additional holy day.

So I am not sure that getting a tree and purchasing presents and such puts you in Rome and at odds against the authors of these quotes. Now if you reverenced the day and set it aside as the 53rd holy day of the year then you would indeed be in Rome.

I think these Reformers saw nothing wrong with celebrating the advent of Christ be it June or December and many of them would not have issues with enjoying the festivities of a cultural season be that something like Independence day or Thanksgiving or a time of year where lights are lit and presents exchanged - just don't offer any of that as strange fire at the altar during the public worship of God.

All this to say, I don't think your family traditions are what is being referred to in many of these quotes per se, but rather they are in response to blatant syncretism.


----------



## jogri17

ChristopherPaul said:


> lynnie:
> 
> I have not gone through all your helpful quotes, but I am pretty sure all Reformed churches do not view xmas as a special holy day and that is what many of the anti-xmas quotes refer to - treating the day as an additional holy day.
> 
> So I am not sure that getting a tree and purchasing presents and such puts you in Rome and at odds against the authors of these quotes. Now if you reverenced the day and set it aside as the 53rd holy day of the year then you would indeed be in Rome.
> 
> I think these Reformers saw nothing wrong with celebrating the advent of Christ be it June or December and many of them would not have issues with enjoying the festivities of a cultural season be that something like Independence day or Thanksgiving or a time of year where lights are lit and presents exchanged - just don't offer any of that as strange fire at the altar during the public worship of God.
> 
> All this to say, I don't think your family traditions are what is being referred to in many of these quotes per se, but rather they are in response to blatant syncretism.


good food for thought however I am not refereing to the cultural celebration of xmas but rather the celebration of it in the church.


----------



## Christusregnat

ChristopherPaul said:


> lynnie:
> 
> I have not gone through all your helpful quotes, but I am pretty sure all Reformed churches do not view xmas as a special holy day and that is what many of the anti-xmas quotes refer to - treating the day as an additional holy day.



Christopher,

Some of the quotations refer to recognizing the holiday as mere anniversaries or memorials, rather than a 53d sabbath. In fact, private observances, as you will see, were put under civil censure by the Long Parliament, Geneva's Little Council and by the Scottish Parliament (I believe), as well as in New England.

Cheers,


----------



## N. Eshelman

SolaSaint said:


> All I ask is not to replace Christ in Christmas with "X" Thank You.



It's not an 'ex'; its a 'chi'.


----------



## Christusregnat

nleshelman said:


> SolaSaint said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ask is not to replace Christ in Christmas with "X" Thank You.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not an 'ex'; its a 'chi'.
Click to expand...


Shanks a lowte! That was my intention.


----------



## lynnie

Some of those quotes have strongly worded references to the command that six days shall ye labor, and you are breaking that command to take an extra day off for this Romanish celebration.

Joh Murray says somewhere in his ethics book that we focus so much on the Sabbath that we neglect the first part of that command which is to work six days, and any society that leaves the six day workweek behind begins to erode both spiritually and economically.

Now I am not pointing fingers at anybody as I fully intend to take Christmas off as much as possible, and not do any homeschool or housework at all, and I will thanking God for a break every second of it 

But the original question had to do with what the Reformers think, so I am just trying make the point- if we want to be truly reformed here - that many of them thought you need to work six days and only take off the sabbath, and all the extra holidays were wrong, most especially the holidays of pagan origin.

(my personal opinion is that the Jews had a passover week where they went to Jerusalem, and another week of the feast of booths where they camped outside, so two weeks of "vacation" a year seems like a godly pattern. Plus they had some extra feast days here and there besides the normal seventh day sabbath, like Purim. So you can't say an extra day off is necessarily wrong.)


----------



## SolaSaint

Christusregnat said:


> nleshelman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SolaSaint said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I ask is not to replace Christ in Christmas with "X" Thank You.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not an 'ex'; its a 'chi'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shanks a lowte! That was my intention.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, I'm unaware of 'chi'? Please help me here. Thanks


----------



## matthew11v25

whats wrong with 'xmas' instead of 'christmas'? its the initial for 'Christ' right?


----------



## N. Eshelman

'Chi' is the first Greek letter in the name of Christ. It is like writing N for Nathan or E for Eshelman. It is merely shorthand. It is not intended 'to take Christ out of Christmas' (although as the OP is implying- Was He ever in it?)


----------



## NRB

What of Christmas Eve communion services? We had one at our PCA church this year. I am a new member there so I can only assume it's done regularly here at our church.


----------



## au5t1n

NRB said:


> What of Christmas Eve communion services? We had one at our PCA church this year. I am a new member there so I can only assume it's done regularly here at our church.



You will get different answers. A lot of us (including me) would say it should not be done because it is not commanded by God to observe Christ's birthday on Dec. 25th (i.e. it violates the RPW). My PCA church had planned to have one too, and I wasn't going to attend (I didn't make a fuss about it or anything), but then it was cancelled due to weather anyway. The PCA is not uniform in this regard - Some churches celebrate Christmas; some don't.

I used to think the RPW was restrictive and legalistic, but I've come to see it as a blessing. I suggest you keep studying it; it's a very important subject for the purity of the Church. 

-----Added 12/29/2009 at 04:38:33 EST-----

Oops, I forgot about the "no discussion" in the original post! Please PM me, NRB, if you want to respond to my post.


----------



## Christusregnat

austinww said:


> Oops, I forgot about the "no discussion" in the original post! Please PM me, NRB, if you want to respond to my post.



I hereby lift the ban.


----------

