The King, the Pastor, and the Prelates When King James took the throne in England, he repudiated Presbyterianism and became an advocate of the Anglican Church government, because it was more compatible with his notions of monarchy. At the Assembly of Perth, in 1617, the king sought to impose various ceremonies designed to enhance the Episcopal cause. The liturgical impositions included receiving communion in a kneeling position, private administration of the sacraments, Episcopal confirmation, and the observance of Christmas, Easter, Whitsuntide, and the Ascension. Scottish ministers resisted this action, with a supplication against all points of the program.[21] David Calderwood (1575-1651) represents the firm opposition given by faithful Scottish ministers. He issued a pointed critique of the Perth Assembly, published in 1619, in which he attacked these innovations in worship that were imposed upon the Church of Scotland. In a section on festival days, Calderwood asserts that only God has the prerogative to appoint a day of rest and to sanctify it to his honor. Under the law of God, no one presumed to appoint holy days but God, and that either by Himself, or by some extraordinary direction. [22] Moreover, the anniversary days prescribed by God pertained to the ceremonial law; but so it is that the ceremonial law is abolished. The anniversary days were distinguished from the moral sabbath; only the ordinary (weekly) sabbath remains. The moral use of the ordinary sabbath was for the service of God in general both private and public. The mystical use [of the anniversary days] was to be a memorial of things bypast, and a shadow of things to come. The moral use endures, the mystical uses are vanished. The Judaical days had once that honor, as to be appointed by God himself; but the anniversary days appointed by men have not the like honor.[23] Calderwood continues, If it had been the will of God that the several acts of Christ should have been celebrated with several solemnities, the Holy Ghost would have made known to us the day of his nativity, circumcision, presentation in the temple, baptism, transfiguration, and the like. This opinion of Christs nativity on the 25th day of December was bred at Rome. He then exposes some of the preposterous Romish claims made for the 25th day of December as the day of Christs birth; and he notes inconsistent claims, made in previous centuries, for other dates on the calendar, as the day of the Saviors nativity. The diversity of the ancients observing some the 6th day of January, some the 19th day of April, some the 19th of May, some the 25th day of December, argues that the Apostles never ordained it. You see then as God hid the body of Moses, so has he hid this day, and other days depending on the calculation of it, wherein he declared his will concerning the other days of his notable acts: to wit, that not Christs action, but Christs institution makes a day holy. Nay, let us utter the truth, December-Christmas is a just imitation of the December-Saturnal of the ethnic [heathen] Romans, and so used as if Bacchus, and not Christ, were the God of Christians.[24] It is commonly objected, that we may as well keep a day for the nativity, as for the resurrection of Christ. We have answered already, that Christs day, or the Lords Day, is the day appointed for remembrance of his nativity, and all his action and benefits, as well as for the resurrection. [25] Further, says Calderwood, even supposing that the keeping of holy days was initially indifferent, the festival days must now be abolished, because they are abused and polluted with superstition. Indeed, the brazen serpent was originally constructed by Gods express command; yet it was destroyed when it became a snare to the people of God (2 Kings 18:4). How much more, then, should we discard man-made observances which are additionally contaminated with Romish superstition and idolatry.[26] In 1628, David Calderwood issued a small work, The Pastor and the Prelate. In a witty and bold manner, this small volume illustrates the contrasting views of the Presbyterians (represented by the Pastor), and the Prelatical party. In the appropriate sections pertaining to worship, Calderwood again touches upon the holy days. Beside the sabbath, the Pastor 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.... In contrast, The Prelate, by his doctrine, practice, example, and neglect of discipline, declares that he has no such reverent estimation of the sabbath. He dotes so upon the observation of Pasche, Yule, and festival days appointed by men, that he prefers them to the sabbath, and has turned to nothing our solemn fasts and blessed humiliations.[27] THE PASTOR, comparing the worship of God under the gospel with the worship under the law, finds that the commandment, Deut. 12:32, Every word that I command you, that ye shall observe to do; thou shalt not add unto it, neither shalt ye diminish from it, does equally concern both: that the mind of man, if left to itself, would prove as vain and foolish under the gospel as under the law, and that Jesus Christ was faithful as a son in all the house of God, above Moses, who was but a servant; and therefore, albeit the ceremonial observations under the law were many, which was the burden of the kirk under the Old Testament, and ours be few, which is our benefit, yet the determination from God, in all the matters of his worship, he finds to be all particular; the direction of all the parts of our obedience to be as clear to us that now live under the gospel, as it was to them that lived under the law. THE PRELATE, as if either it were lawful now to add to the word, or mans mind were in a better frame, or the Son of God not so faithful as Moses the servant, or as if direction in few ceremonies could not be as plain as in many, would bring into the kirk a new ceremonial law, made up of translations of divine worship, of imitations of false worship, and of inventions of will-worship, to succeed to the abolished ceremonies under the law, which he interprets to be the liberty and power of the Christian kirk in matters indifferent, above the kirk of the Old Testament, but is indeed the great door whereby himself and others (strange office-bearers, whereby days, altars, vestures, cross, kneeling, and all that Romish rabbles shadow) have entered into the kirk of Christ, and which will never be shut again till himself be shut out, who, while he is within, holds it wide open. THE PASTOR gives no power to the kirk to appoint other things in the worship of God, than are appointed already by Christ, the only lawgiver of his kirk, but to set down canons and constitutions about things before appointed, and to dispose the circumstances of order and decency that are equally necessary in civil and religious actions.... THE PRELATE, as a new lawgiver, will appoint new rites and mystical signs in the kirk, that depend upon mere institution, and are not concluded upon any reason of Christian prudence for such a time and place, but upon grounds unchangeable, and therefore obliging at all times and places, as is evident by the reason that he brings for festival days, kneeling in the sacrament, etc.[28] George Gillespie and Opposition to the English-Popish Ceremonies Over the next several decades, tensions persisted within the Scottish Church because of the Anglican order imposed upon the Scots. The Church of England was never purged of many liturgical superstitions which were carried over from Roman Catholicism. When the Anglican rituals (including holidays) were obtruded on the Scottish Church, militant opposition arose among the Scots. George Gillespie (1613-49) wrote a definitive response to the advocates of the Anglican order. Gillespie was a premier theologian, and later served as a Scottish Commissioner to the Westminster Assembly. In 1637, Gillespies book on the liturgical controversy was published: A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies Obtruded Upon the Church of Scotland. Gillespies work contains a four-fold assault upon the ceremonies in general. First he argues against their necessity; second, he dispels notions that they are expedient; third, he demonstrates their unlawfulness; and fourth, he shows they are not indifferent. In each section, he draws applications of general principles to specific ceremonies which he finds objectionable. Specifically, he disputes the propriety of kneeling in the act of receiving the Lords Supper, the use of the sign of the cross in baptism, confirmation, the surplice, and holidays. The holidays take a severe beating on a number of counts. Some of his arguments are as follows. Gillespie cites Knox to demonstrate the regulative principle of worship.[29] Upon this principle, the holidays must be excluded, since they lack any positive warrant in the scriptures. Gillespie rests his case on the second commandment. The second commandment is moral and perpetual, and forbids to us as well as to them the additions and inventions of men in the worship of God. Therefore, sacred significant ceremonies devised by man are to be reckoned among those images forbidden in the second commandment.[30] Based upon Galatians 4:10 and Colossians 2:16, Gillespie notes the passing away of the biblical ceremonial feasts: those days having had the honor to be once appointed by God himself, were to be honorably buried.... If Paul condemned the observing of feasts which God himself instituted, then much more does he condemn the observation of feasts of mans devising.[31] Gillespie notes the superstitious and corrupt origins of the ceremonies. He provides numerous scripture references to show the duty of Gods people to remove all remnants of idolatry from among them (Ex. 34:13; Num. 33:52; Deut. 7:5, 25-26; 12:2-3; Isa. 30:22) Gillespies opponents claim that it is enough to clear away the abuses of the ceremonies, not the rites themselves; but Gillespie answers that, unless these ceremonies can be proven to be of necessary use by Gods appointment, they must be purged completely out of existence.[32] Further, the ceremonies are not simply the monuments of past idolatry. They continue to be used by the Papists in their present corrupt and idolatrous worship. Thus, these rites are the very badges of present idolatry. 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, etc. are the wares of Rome, the baggage of Babylon, the trinkets of the whore, the badges of Popery, the ensigns of Christs 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.[33] Throughout his discussion, Gillespie touches on a critical implication of the whole discussion: the limits of church power. Speaking of times, places, and things, Gillespie notes, The Church has no power as by her dedication to make them holy.[34] The supporters of ecclesiastical holidays frequently assert the right of the Church to institute holy seasons and observances. Such an argument smacks of Popery, because it grants to the Church a legislative power to enact new observances besides those given in scripture. Further, Gillespie notes another alarming trend. The ecclesiastical ceremonies become like sacraments in their significance and use. The ceremonies are thought to be mystically symbolic, and effectual teachers of spiritual things. The symbolic and didactic features of the holidays makes them man-made (false) sacraments. Additionally, when people urge these observances for a didactic purpose, they undercut the sufficiency of the scriptures. If we consider how that the Word of God is given unto us for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be thoroughly furnished unto all good works: it cannot but be evident how superfluously, how superstitiously the office of sacred teaching and mystical signification is given to dumb and lifeless ceremonies, ordained of men, and consequently how justly they are taxed as vain worship.[35] Gillespie also observes how ecclesiastical holidays undermine the true distinction of the Lords day. Upon holy days they enjoin a cessation from work, and a dedicating of the day to Divine worship, even as upon the Lords day. In fact, let it be observed, whether or not they keep the festival days more carefully, and urge the keeping of them more earnestly, than the Lords own day. ...And whereas they can digest the common profanation of the Lords day, and not challenge it, they cannot away with the not observing of their festivities.[36] As an additional practical criticism, Gillespie gives a special word on the revelry associated with Christmas: The keeping of some festival days is set up instead of the thankful commemoration of Gods inestimable benefits: howbeit the festivity of Christmas has hitherto served more to Bacchanalian lasciviousness than to the remembrance of the birth of Christ.[37] With this cursory survey of Gillespies monumental work, the reader is invited to consider the issues raised by Gillespies criticisms. The essential issues have changed very little over the past 350 years.
Posted on: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 09:04:02 +0000