Calvin and the pretended holy days, another annual review

[NaphtaliPress]

I posted something similar but with more quotations than review last year and I've posted similar stuff over the years because Calvin is so misused and misquoted on this subject (e.g., here, here, here). This is a version more of a review/summary I posted to Facebook last late December. Posting here so early? Albertsons was changing out all the holiday stuff this past week so I figure if they can be so early, why can't I?

December 17, 2022. I harp on this but it bears repeating. Because of opposition to the pretended holy days such as the one coming up, you will this time of year see Calvin trotted out as either a fan or neither for nor against the observance by churches of such days. Those saying he was in favor simply don’t know or understand the corpus of what he had to say on the subject. Nor was Calvin simply neutral, neither for nor against their observance. His view was complicated since he was viewed as a leader of the Reformation in that he had personal views and then there is what he said diplomatically to keep peace amongst the churches. This was particularly true with Bern and other churches with regard to the old pretended holy days, which they chose to retain while others did not or sought to get out from under. Calvin himself knew how ‘hot’ the question could be since it was among other things the imposition which Bern placed on Geneva of following Bern’s worship practices, including five of the old holy days, which got Calvin and Farel ejected from Geneva when they took a stand against the Bern impositions in 1638. Farel had abolished all holy days except the Lord’s Day and Calvin was in agreement with this when he joined him in the ministry in 1536 after Farel practically put a curse on him if he refused. After this, Calvin would rather have died than return to Geneva, but Farel again prevailed on him and when he returned to Geneva for the 1540s forward he agreed to abide by the imposed Bern worship practices—and then immediately preceded to work at getting rid of the observance of those pretended holy days! It continued a hot dispute as he writes in his letters and by 1550 the authorities had had enough and outlawed the remaining days and moved Christmas to simply a nativity sermon on the closest Lord’s Day to December 25th. So, I think simply saying Calvin was neither for nor against does not do justice to his more full view. He was not for denigrating sister churches, but he himself opposed the old holidays and by 1557 would write, “With respect to ceremonies and above all the observance of holy days [I offer the following]: Although there are some who eagerly long to remain in conformity with such practices, I do not know how they can do so without disregard for the edification of the church, nor [do I know] how they can render an account to God for having advanced evil and impeded its solution…. Nevertheless, since we have to endure a number of imperfections when we cannot correct them, I am of the opinion that no brother ought to allow the above to be the cause of his leaving his church, unless the majority support the opposite.” Letter, December 25, 1557, in Calvin’s Ecclesiastical Advice, p. 90. In this he had been fairly consistent, though playing the diplomat with those like Bern and disclaiming a hand in Geneva’s ceasing to observe the imposed Bernese observances. He may have not had a direct hand but he had been working and teaching against such observances, which surely was a factor with the council. As one scholar writes, the council would have not made a final move against the remaining days in 1550 without knowing Calvin would not have opposed it. In fact, he does say he believed it was a good move even if he might have done it differently (to paraphrase). So I think it is simplistic to say he was neither for nor against; he most certainly was against and he advised churches that were able to get rid of the days, to never return to their observance.

So, in sum, Calvin was against criticizing the sister church down the street who did different from you. Yet, what was his advice when church leaders asked about the pretended holy days? His consistent stance from the time Farel banned them in Geneva, through their imposition by Bern and his banishment, and upon his return to the end of his ministry, was to oppose their imposition, to advise if possible to get out from under them, he himself worked to reduce the observance of them in Geneva after his return, and he was satisfied with Geneva’s ban of them in 1550, and heavily censored those as blamable late in his ministry who retained them. That sure does not sound like being neither for nor against holy days.

The above is based on all the material I could find, with some new translations never before in English, collected and presented in “In Translatiōne: John Calvin’s Letters to the Ministers of Montbéliard (1543–1544): The Genevan Reformer’s Advice and Views of the Liturgical Calendar,” The Confessional Presbyterian 13 (2017): 198-220, translations by David C. Noe and background by Chris Coldwell.

 

[Sam Jer]

To clarify, would you object to someone holding Calvin's view?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

To clarify, would you object to someone holding Calvin's view?

Only as outlined (again, I'm reacting to what I see is that most do not understand Calvin's actual views, who trot him out annually amongst the Reformed to justify observing the pretended holy days). I think the main difference with Calvin and historic confessional Scottish/American Presbyterianism is his tolerance of the pretended holy days while at the same time working quietly as it were against them. So I suppose if one is in a situation that he inherits a ministry with such things strongly ingrained, one might find a pattern in Calvin. We have to begin somewhere and not every situation is going to be like Scotland that was able to ban them from the beginning. Another thing, I think if he had lived a lot longer, is that he would see that having a nativity sermon, which was part of the final solution to putting away all holy days in Geneva in 1550 (which included dropping Dec. 25 and simply having a topical nativity sermon the closest Lord's Day) is that he, knowing all he said on the topic, would see that this would prove to be a constant camel's nose in the tent for observance of the old pretended holy days to come back into the church.

 

[riverman]

What’s the best concise work on this topic from a Presbyterian point of view?

 

[Northern Crofter]

What’s the best concise work on this topic from a Presbyterian point of view?

Galatians?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

What’s the best concise work on this topic from a Presbyterian point of view?

Hard to say. Possibly Samuel Miller's Presbyterians do not observe holy days. What George Gillespie, David Calderwood, have to say is up at naphtali.com. There are pieces that focus more on their origins as an issue; Gillespie focuses on their violation of biblical principles and their idolatry.
Edit. Reformed Books online offers a number of things.

 

[Northern Crofter]

What’s the best concise work on this topic from a Presbyterian point of view?

The topic comes up often in the later Scottish Reformation. Here's a bit from Samuel Rutherford [Opponent] and Thomas Sydserff [Answer], ‘An discussing of some arguments against cannons and ceremonies in God’s worship, 1636’ (pp.95-96)


But it is worth noting that even in the early days of the Scots' reformation, there is specific mention of avoiding the superstitions of presumed holy days, despite the admitted borrowing from Geneva ("...albeit the order of Geneva which now is used in some of our Churches...." Scots' First Book of Discipline [1621] "The second head of Sacraments." par.2; "...especially in the Catechisme as we have it now translated in the booke of the common order called the order of Geneva." Ibid. "The necessitie of Schooles." par.1):

"By the contrary doctrine we understand whatsoever men by lawes, counsells, or constitutions, have imposed upon the consciences of men, without the expressed commandement of Gods word, such as be the vowes to chastitie, forswearing of marriage, binding of men and women to several and disguised apparrells, to the superstitious observation of fasting dayes, difference of meat for conscience sake, prayer for the dead, and keeping of holy dayes of certaine Saints commanded by man, such as be all those that the Papists have invented, as the feasts (as they terme them) {25} of the Apostles, Martyrs, Virgines, of Christmasse, Circumcision, Epiphanie, Purification, and other fond [foolish] feastes of our Ladie: which things because in Gods Scriptures they neither have commandement nor assurance, we judge them utterly to be abolished from this Realme: affirming farther that the obstinate maintainers and teachers of such abhominations ought not to escape the punishment of the civill Magistrate." (Ibid. "The explication of the first head." par.2)

and

"Foure times in the yeare we think sufficient to the administration of the Lords Table, which we desire to be distincted, that the superstition of times may be avoided so farre as may be. For your Honours are not ignorant how superstitiously the people runne to that action at Pasche, even as if the time gave vertue to the Sacrament; and how the rest of the whole yeare, they are carelesse and negligent, as if it appertained not unto them, but at {59} that time onely. We thinke therfore most expedient, that the first Sonday of March be appointed for one time, the first Sonday of Iune for another; the first Sonday of September for the third; the first Sonday of December for the fourth. We doe not deny but any severall Kirk for reasonable causes may change the time, and may minister oftner, but we studie to represse superstition." (Ibid. "The ninth head concerning the policie of the kirk." par.3.)

I personally found the Appendix ("Touching Days and Places for Publick Worship.") to The Directory for the Publick Worship of God to be the most simple and helpful:

"THERE is no day commanded in scripture to be kept holy under the gospel but the Lord’s day, which is the Christian Sabbath.

"Festival days, vulgarly called Holy-days, having no warrant in the word of God, are not to be continued.

"Nevertheless, it is lawful and necessary, upon special emergent occasions, to separate a day or days for publick fasting or thanksgiving, as the several eminent and extraordinary dispensations of God’s providence shall administer cause and opportunity to his people."

That it was added and adopted tells me this was the consensus/majority view at the time so there should be plenty of written support in that era. But I admit that this position made sense to me early on so I have never had a reason to really look into how it was being supported.

The only modern work I've ever read was The Regulative Principle of Worship and Christmas by Brian Schwertley, but while I agreed with most of what he said, I have also always found most of how he says things to be rather caustic. If you want more in that vein, try here.

But Gillespie's Dispute against the English popish ceremonies, obtruded upon the Church of Scotland is probably the best summary (200 pages) from the age of the Directory and is probably what you are looking for. I will admit to having only read portions. It is readily available online for free or there are cheap paperback copies.

 

[riverman]

Thank you, brothers.

And how about when discussing this topic with Christians who think Christmas is absolutely a Christian holy day? What’s the distilled explanation for why this is wrong, for people who don’t think about the RPW?

Some people cannot even compute that Christmas isn’t legitimately to be celebrated in corporate worship.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Thank you, brothers.

And how about when discussing this topic with Christians who think Christmas is absolutely a Christian holy day? What’s the distilled explanation for why this is wrong, for people who don’t think about the RPW?

I'm afraid I don't have an easy answer. My extended family are largely professing Christians - and some are members of denominations common on PB - and they all observe Christmass. As do many in our EP congregation. The latter folk should be easier to explain it to but not really. I'm embarrassed to admit that though there is no celebration of it in public worship, the majority celebrate it at home, including the elders (who justify it as merely a common civic holiday).

As for when asked why we don't observe holydays by family, I have usually just asked why they think we should. There is no good reason for December 25th, and the appeal to taking one day each year to celebrate Christ's birth, which is rarely on a Sunday, is hard to justify Biblically. But it becomes a difficult conversation if they ask if everyone in our church thinks like we do - I have to say "No, but they should based on our confessional standards" (like WCF 21).

Easter is more difficult to oppose for many reasons: I think it can be argued that the day of Christ's resurrection is more important than the day of His birth (or death or ascension) and we can calculate the day each year in our calendars based on the testimony of Scripture (vs a random day like Dec 25th). But the latter argument should lead back to only observing the first day of the week as the Lord's Day - yes, we can know the date each year for Passover, and so we can figure out the annual date of Christ's resurrection, but it wouldn't always be the 1st day of the week, something which is emphasized in the Gospels.

A professing Christian must ignore large parts of Scripture (like Hebrews and Galatians) to maintain use of the Jewish calendar in the NEW dispensation of the covenant of grace to justify observing Easter. They must appeal outside of Scripture entirely to justify observing Christmass.

Some people cannot even compute that Christmas isn’t legitimately to be celebrated in corporate worship.

Well, we should - every Lord's Day (minus the Mass part!).

 

[Sam Jer]

Let me play the undecided interviewer once more... What of the apparent opinion of the Swiss Reformed Churches?

... Every Church, therefore, chooses for itself a certain time for public prayers, and for the preaching of the Gospel, and for the celebration of the sacraments; and no one is permitted to overthrow this appointment of the Church at his own pleasure...
In this connection we do not yield to the Jewish observance and to superstitions. For we do not believe that one day is any holier than another, or think that rest in itself is acceptable to God...
Moreover, if in Christian liberty the churches religiously celebrate the memory of the Lord's nativity, circumcision, passion, resurrection, and of his ascension into heaven, and the sending of the Holy Spirit upon his disciples, we approve of it highly. but we do not approve of feasts instituted for men and for saints...
The fast of Lent is attested by antiquity but not at all in the writings of the apostles. Therefore it ought not, and cannot, be imposed on the faithful...
(II Helvetic Confession of Faith, Chapter XXIV: Of Holy Days, Fasts and the Choice of Foods)

I am intrested both in how they reached their'e conclusions (beyond the barebones argument confessed), why the anti-holidayists disagree, and how the Swiss reconsiled the apparent contradiction between the underlined sections.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Let me play the undecided interviewer once more... What of the apparent opinion of the Swiss Reformed Churches?


I am intrested both in how they reached their'e conclusions (beyond the barebones argument confessed), why the anti-holidayists disagree, and how the Swiss reconsiled the apparent contradiction between the underlined sections.

By contradiction are you referring to where the 2nd Helvetic states "Wherefore we do not despise the interpretations of the holy Greek and Latin fathers, nor reject their disputations and treatises concerning sacred matters as far as they agree with the Scriptures; but we modestly dissent from them when they are found to set down things differing from, or altogether contrary to, the Scriptures." (Ch.2 "Of Interpreting The Holy Scripture; and of Fathers, Councils, and Traditions')? The 2nd Helvetic also traces the old new nature of "the Paschal lamb" and the Lord's Supper (ch.19) so it could also seem contradictory that they allow for a continuance of Easter/Pascha (see also in the chapter you quoted: "...we do not yield to the Jewish observance and to superstitions."). But I think it comes down to the fact that the Swiss/French do not define a Regulative Principle as clearly as the British confessions, probably a matter of cantons vs countries (which I take from statements like "... if in Christian liberty the churches..." in the portion you quoted). That is, the Scots (and later the UK) adopted a document of national reformation whereas the looser political ties amongst the Swiss prevented adoption of firmer standards in some areas.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Let me play the undecided interviewer once more... What of the apparent opinion of the Swiss Reformed Churches?


I am intrested both in how they reached their'e conclusions (beyond the barebones argument confessed), why the anti-holidayists disagree, and how the Swiss reconsiled the apparent contradiction between the underlined sections.

I don't know the specifics. I suspect it goes back to belief (self importance) of cantons like Bern that insisted in a political alliance that Geneva adopted Bern's worship practices (including observance of days) This led through unfolding of events to the expulsion of Farel and Calvin. All days besides observing the Lord's Day had been jettisoned in their reforms and their offer of a compromise (essentially what eventually was adopted 20 years later in 1550 in Geneva) was refused. There were people, particularly magistrates, that were overly attached to these observances; Calvin complains of once such but I don't have my research at hand (see the quote below from one of his letters). I don't see how you square the not apparent but clear contradiction. How do you highly commend something not commanded? Is it even indifferent once you insist on it and highly approve of it. I think what Voetius said of the Dutch churches applies here, that the holy days were retained due to magistrates insistence and stubborn people.

"With respect to ceremonies and above all the observance of holy days [I offer the following]: Although there are some who eagerly long to remain in conformity with such practices, I do not know how they can do so without disregard for the edification of the church, nor [do I know] how they can render an account to God for having advanced evil and impeded its solution…. Nevertheless, since we have to endure a number of imperfections when we cannot correct them, I am of the opinion that no brother ought to allow the above to be the cause of his leaving his church, unless the majority support the opposite." Letter, December 25, 1557, in Calvin’s Ecclesiastical Advice, p. 90.

For everything I could find on Calvin's views see In Translatiōne: John Calvin’s Letters to the Ministers of Montbéliard (1543–1544): The Genevan Reformer’s Advice and Views of the Liturgical Calendar), in The Confessional Presbyterian 13 (2017). That issue remains in print and available.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

As for when asked why we don't observe holydays by family, I have usually just asked why they think we should.

That's good!

 

[Sam Jer]

the contradiction I was referring to was between:
I. "and no one is permitted to overthrow this appointment of the Church at his own pleasure... if in Christian liberty the churches religiously celebrate (the holidays)... we approve of it highly"
II. "The fast of Lent is attested by antiquity but not at all in the writings of the apostles. Therefore it ought not, and cannot, be imposed on the faithful"

 

[Northern Crofter]

the contradiction I was referring to was between:
I. "and no one is permitted to overthrow this appointment of the Church at his own pleasure... if in Christian liberty the churches religiously celebrate (the holidays)... we approve of it highly"
II. "The fast of Lent is attested by antiquity but not at all in the writings of the apostles. Therefore it ought not, and cannot, be imposed on the faithful"

I'm afraid I still don't follow - it seems you are conflating different (distinct) portions of Chapter 24. The phrase "...if in Christian liberty the churches religiously celebrate (the holidays)... we approve of it highly" is not in the same section/paragraph as the "no one is permitted to overthrow this appointment of the Church at his own pleasure" phrase - the latter quote is referring to the setting of times for regular worship and has nothing to do with so-called holydays. Lent is treated separately in par.8:

"Although religion is not bound to time, yet it cannot be cultivated and exercised without a proper distribution and arrangement of time. Every Church, therefore, chooses for itself a certain time for public prayers, and for the preaching of the Gospel, and for the celebration of the sacraments; and no one is permitted to overthrow this appointment of the Church at his own pleasure. For unless some due time and leisure is given for the outward exercise of religion, without doubt men would be drawn away from it by their own affairs." ("THE TIME NECESSARY FOR WORSHIP."/Paragraph 1.)

"Moreover, if in Christian liberty the churches religiously celebrate the memory of the Lord’s nativity, circumcision, passion, resurrection, and of his ascension into heaven, and the sending of the Holy Spirit upon his disciples, we approve of it highly, but we do not approve of feasts instituted for men and for saints. Holy days have to do with the first Table of the Law and belong to God alone. Finally, holy days which have been instituted for the saints and which we have abolished, have much that is absurd and useless, and are not to be tolerated. In the meantime, we confess that the remembrance of saints, at a suitable time and place, is to be profitably commended to the people in sermons, and the holy examples of the saints set forth to be imitated by all." ("THE FESTIVALS OF Christ AND THE SAINTS."/Paragraph 4.)

"LENT. The fast of Lent is attested by antiquity but not at all in the writings of the apostles. Therefore it ought not, and cannot, be imposed on the faithful. It is certain that formerly there were various forms and customs of fasting. hence, Irenaeus, a most ancient writer, says: “Some think that a fast should be observed one day only, others two days, but others more, and some forty days. This diversity in keeping this fast did not first begin in our times, but long before us by those, as I suppose, who did not simply keep to what had been delivered to them from the beginning, but afterwards fell into another custom either through negligence or ignorance” (Fragm. 3, ed. Stieren, I. 824 f.). Moreover, Socrates, the historian, says: “Because no ancient text is found concerning this matter, I think the apostles left this to every man’s own judgment, that every one might do what is good without fear or constraint” (Hist. ecclesiast. V.22, 40)." ("LENT."/Paragraph 8.)

Essentially what the 2nd Helvetic is saying in these 3 sections/paragraphs is that Churches (I believe this would, in that day, be a reference to national/established Churches - cf. use of "particular churches" vs. the catholic or universal Church in WCF 25) must have fixed times for public worship (par.1), may choose to observe holydays (par.2), but cannot impose Lenten customs (par.8). I don't agree with their conclusions, but I don't see a contradiction.

 

[Sam Jer]

they say the churches cannot impose Lenten customs because "The fast of Lent is attested by antiquity but not at all in the writings of the apostles". Yet, they say that the churches religiously celebrating these feasts is good, despite it too not being attested in the writings of the apostles, and that after saying "no one is permitted to overthrow this appointment of the Church at his own pleasure".

 

[MarrowMan]

Anymore this debate bores me. It simply boils down to this. Why do you celebrate “x” holy day? Is it because it is instrumental/efficacious/necessary/valuable to the life of faith and sanctification? If you answer yes, then demonstrate how. Specifically, what promise of God is attached to them? If the answer is no, then holy days are nostalgia and sentimentality.