The Puritans and Christmas

[Poimen]

So the expectation, or duty, comes from the culture? Also a "call" to worship I believe places an obligation on the laity.

The Church Order simply does not require attendance at the feast days. There may be a tacit obligation, but not one which would require church discipline if ignored.

 

[earl40]

The Church Order simply does not require attendance at the feast days. There may be a tacit obligation, but not one which would require church discipline if ignored.

A "tacit" obligation is still a duty...so says the man married to a girl named Tina.

 

[Poimen]

Daniel, do you know if there is a history in those first instituting the four evangelical feasts on the continent of doing so only for policy and order as the saying goes or was it common to use the Anglican defense from Esther and Purim to defend the church having actual authority to institute the keeping of these as some one noted here or another thread?

No, I don't. From my understanding of the time, there were two parties on this matter from the earliest days of the church and the pro-feast day lobby eventually won the day through the hand of the magistrate. That is why it is difficult, if not impossible, to speak about a "Continental tradition" when the church did not, and in some cases, could not, speak univocally without a kind of Erastian interference.

For what it is worth, I looked at the notes from the 17th Dort Annotations and they do not address the matter of feast days in Esther 9&10.

 

[Poimen]

A "tacit" obligation is still a duty...so says the man married to a girl named Tina.

Fair enough. Nevertheless I am glad they changed the Church Order from "shall" to "may."

 

[NaphtaliPress]

No, I don't. From my understanding of the time, there were two parties on this matter from the earliest days of the church and the pro-feast day lobby eventually won the day through the hand of the magistrate. That is why it is difficult, if not impossible, to speak about a "Continental tradition" when the church did not, and in some cases, could not, speak univocally without a kind of Erastian interference.

For what it is worth, I looked at the notes from the 17th Dort Annotations and they do not address the matter of feast days in Esther 9&10.

So basically, the Continental Reformed had their Anglican branch w.r.t. such things. That's going to make it pretty hard to do a parallel reading like Lane suggested on his recommendation thead. Or easy; Gillespie repeats the Anglican arguments. @greenbaggins Good to see that didn't get into the Dutch Annotations (I assume in Dutch as well as in puritan English!).

 

[Poimen]

@NaphtaliPress

Source:H. Bouwman "Gereformeerd Kerkrecht" (translated from the Dutch by Google)
http://kerkrecht.nl/node/2734

"Also in the Netherlands the church leaders initially tried to abolish all the holidays. The synod of 1574 determined that one would be satisfied with Sunday alone, and that on the Sunday before Christmas Day the birth of Christ would be dealt with, but it allowed the servants on Easter and Pentecost. the history of the resurrection and mission of the Holy Spirit would preach. But because some other feast days were maintained by authority of the government, the synod of 1578 allowed preaching on the second feast days, as well as on New Year's Day and Ascension Day, to prevent idleness and debauchery. But the churches would try to abolish the holidays as much as possible apart from 'the Christday.' The synod of Middelburg (1581, Art. 50) also included the Ascension Day among the obligatory holidays. But the synod of 1586 in The Hague limited the recognized holidays only to Sunday, Christmas Day, Passover and Pentecost. But in places where - by order of the government - more feast days in memory of the mercies of Christ, such as those of the circumcision of Christ and the Ascension Day, were held, the preachers had to preach "the membership of the people in a holy and useful service change." The situation was thus at the beginning of the 17th century such that Christmas Day, Passover and Pentecost were generally maintained for the following days, but there was a difference over the circumcision day of Christ or the New Year's Day and the Ascension Day. In some places in Utrecht and in South Holland they began to also celebrate Good Friday, but there was serious opposition to this. And then when several provinces put a question to the General Synod of Dordrecht (1618/19) to come to unanimous observance of the feast days, the synod decided, the celebration of New Year's Day or the day of the circumcision of Christ and the Ascension Day, which was already maintained in most Dutch cities and provinces, to sanction, especially to meet the wishes of the government. The churches were in principle against it, but the government was there for, not only to satisfy the people, but also because, according to the old custom, she then held vacation days. And because on those days the people were at risk of going into idleness or unrestrained frenzy, the ecclesiastics thought it better to tolerate these days as religious holidays, and to accustom the people to preaching on those days. Yet the voice of the opposition continued to rise. Voetius declares that the holidays have been tolerated by the churches, but have not been approved in any way. And it took a long time before people in all provinces had conformed to the decision of the Dordrecht synod. In some places the Circumcision Festival, such as in Dordrecht, was introduced very late, while in Amsterdam and in Zeeland it was not celebrated at all."

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Voetius says the holy days were retained because of the magistrates and "stubborn people."

@NaphtaliPress

Source:H. Bouwman "Gereformeerd Kerkrecht" (translated from the Dutch by Google)
http://kerkrecht.nl/node/2734

"Also in the Netherlands the church leaders initially tried to abolish all the holidays. The synod of 1574 determined that one would be satisfied with Sunday alone, and that on the Sunday before Christmas Day the birth of Christ would be dealt with, but it allowed the servants on Easter and Pentecost. the history of the resurrection and mission of the Holy Spirit would preach. But because some other feast days were maintained by authority of the government, the synod of 1578 allowed preaching on the second feast days, as well as on New Year's Day and Ascension Day, to prevent idleness and debauchery. But the churches would try to abolish the holidays as much as possible apart from 'the Christday.' The synod of Middelburg (1581, Art. 50) also included the Ascension Day among the obligatory holidays. But the synod of 1586 in The Hague limited the recognized holidays only to Sunday, Christmas Day, Passover and Pentecost. But in places where - by order of the government - more feast days in memory of the mercies of Christ, such as those of the circumcision of Christ and the Ascension Day, were held, the preachers had to preach "the membership of the people in a holy and useful service change." The situation was thus at the beginning of the 17th century such that Christmas Day, Passover and Pentecost were generally maintained for the following days, but there was a difference over the circumcision day of Christ or the New Year's Day and the Ascension Day. In some places in Utrecht and in South Holland they began to also celebrate Good Friday, but there was serious opposition to this. And then when several provinces put a question to the General Synod of Dordrecht (1618/19) to come to unanimous observance of the feast days, the synod decided, the celebration of New Year's Day or the day of the circumcision of Christ and the Ascension Day, which was already maintained in most Dutch cities and provinces, to sanction, especially to meet the wishes of the government. The churches were in principle against it, but the government was there for, not only to satisfy the people, but also because, according to the old custom, she then held vacation days. And because on those days the people were at risk of going into idleness or unrestrained frenzy, the ecclesiastics thought it better to tolerate these days as religious holidays, and to accustom the people to preaching on those days. Yet the voice of the opposition continued to rise. Voetius declares that the holidays have been tolerated by the churches, but have not been approved in any way. And it took a long time before people in all provinces had conformed to the decision of the Dordrecht synod. In some places the Circumcision Festival, such as in Dordrecht, was introduced very late, while in Amsterdam and in Zeeland it was not celebrated at all."

 

[Poimen]

So basically, the Continental Reformed had their Anglican branch w.r.t. such things. That's going to make it pretty hard to do a parallel reading like Lane suggested on his recommendation thead. Or easy; Gillespie repeats the Anglican arguments. @greenbaggins Good to see that didn't get into the Dutch Annotations (I assume in Dutch as well as in puritan English!).

It would seem so. I have the read the same analysis from those indifferent to, opposed to and supportive of holy days.

 

[A.Joseph]

“to prevent idleness and debauchery.”
“And because on those days the people were at risk of going into idleness or unrestrained frenzy”

Strange trend here of church as almost a type of behavior modification. So the government encouraged the church to help prevent unrestrained sin? I thought we meet to worship and reflect? I know times were different but seems like strange motivations.