FROM

THE

MILLENNIAL HARBINGER.

SERIES III.

VOL. V.	BETHANY, JANUARY, 1848.	NO. I.

      As we are again, under the protecting providence of our heavenly Father, in the vicinity of this old and almost universal festival, commonly called Christmas, our readers will pardon us if we trouble them with a crumb or two of the old learning we have picked up from the table of "the Fathers," concerning its origin and observance; which, though it may seem hard and crusty, we nevertheless hope will be found digestible and wholesome. It is not unworthy of remark, how ready the human family is to receive unauthorized tradition and to fall into customs and observances, with religious punctiliousness, that have no higher than a human origin or sanction. This proclivity, indeed, is manifested no where so frequently, as in that department of life in which it ought, above every other, to be most scrupulously avoided--to wit, in the customs and institutions of the church. We might array quite a host of illustrations, but the subject of our article must suffice for the present.

      Almost every person, in some form, observes this day; yet it does not appear to be generally considered why or wherefore. The term itself seems to be differently understood, at least differently written. We generally find it written Christ-mas, but sometimes simply [17] Xmas. The sign of the cross is here put for Christ, by what authority we are not informed. We are inclined to think that it is a mistake arising from the confounding of another festival in honor of the erection of the cross, called Crouch or Cross-mas-day, and from which the Eastern Church reckoned their, religions year. However this may be, Christmas is really intended as the Festival of Christ's Nativity. Its origin appears to have been no earlier than the 4th century. St. Augustine, who lived in the latter part of this century, mentions the anniversaries of the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of the Lord, with that of the descent of the Holy Spirit, as the only festivals, supposed in his day to have been introduced by apostolic usage, and therefore sanctioned by the decrees of general councils. He states the fact, however, that in his day Christmas was commonly observed as a festival; but as he denies that it was among the number sanctioned by councils, "there can be no reasonable doubt that it had its rise after the Council of Nice," A. D. 325. Besides, the ante-Nicene Fathers make no mention of such a festival; but, on the contrary, not only speak of the importance of ascertaining the day of his nativity with indifference, but rather discourage such efforts as over-curious. Clemens Alexandrinus, who flourished about the beginning of the 3d century, and of course before the Council of Nice, after expressing, his judgment concerning the years of certain Emperors, in which the Saviour was born, or baptized, or crucified, says: "There are some who over-curiously assign not only the year, but also the day of our Saviour's nativity, which they say was in the 28th year of Augustus, on the 25th day of Pachon, (20th of May.) Nay, some of them say that he was born in Parmuthi, the 20th or 21st day, (24th or 25th April.)" Within two centuries, then, of the birth of our Saviour, we discover that there was not only no festival commemorative of the event, but that not even the day on which it happened could be agreed upon.

      After Christianity became the established religion, under Constantine, it appears that various new institutions were authoritatively introduced for the benefit of the church; and, among others, we are warranted in including that of Christmas. The oriental Christians for a long time assigned the 6th of January as the date of the advent; and as they supposed his manifestation to the eastern Magi and his nativity were on the same day, they, in reference to both these events, called the day Epiphany. His baptism was also supposed to have taken place on the same day of the year, and hence this feast was a favorite period for administering this ordinance. On the other hand, the western Christians made a distinction; and whilst they celebrated [18] the Epiphany on the 6th of January, fixed the 25th of December for the Nativity. This was said to have been ascertained as the right day by Julian I., who was bishop of Rome from A. D. 337 to 352; but though the authority for this statement may not be the best, it is sufficiently clear that it was not till about the middle of the 4th century that the Western Church set apart the 25th of December as the Festival of the Nativity; and not till a much later period that the Eastern Church fell into the same usage.

      It is evident from what we have already said, that the learned are divided upon the certain day of his nativity. Some, indeed, assign the period of the Passover as the true time; others think, and among them Archbishop Usher, the author of our common Bible chronology, that it must have been at the Feast of Tabernacles; whilst to the 25th of December it is reasonably objected, that if, as the sacred historians inform us, the shepherds were watching their flocks by night at the time of his birth, it could hardly have been in the dead of winter. As there are no data whatever, known to us, by which this day can with any certainty be determined, and from the earliest calculations, we find by the extract above given from Clement, a very different period was assigned, than that now agreed upon, we are left entirely to conjecture as to the reason that induced the church to select the 25th of December in preference to all others, and fix upon it as the day of the nativity. Sir Isaac Newton, in his commentaries on the prophecies of Daniel, accounts for the choice of this day, the period of the winter solstice, "by showing, that not only this feast, but most others, were originally fixed at cardinal points of the year; and that the first Christian calendars having been so arranged by mathematicians, at pleasure, without any ground in tradition, the Christians afterwards took up with what they found in the calendars. So long as a fixed time of commemoration was solemnly appointed they were content."

      Others assign to it a mystical origin; and as the Romans on this day celebrated the festival of natalis Solis invecti, or of the Sun's return from the South and passage of the solstice to begin his career north, so they selected this day, to commemorate the rising of the Sun of Righteousness to shed life and blessedness upon mortals. The more probable solution, perhaps, is that this feast, being introduced by the Roman Emperor Constantine, when Christianity was made national, was employed to supplant the Pagan festival of the Saturnalia. This festival was observed by the Pagans in honor of Saturnus, who is supposed to have reigned over Italy during the golden age of the poets, and was therefore held in the highest [19] veneration by the superstitious Romans. Nothing could be more natural, than, when Christianity was humbled to the throne of Paganism, Christ should be disgraced by the services of idolatry.--The time of the two festivals is the same, and the ceremonies were originally almost identical. "It was generally believed that during the reign of Saturnus there were no slaves, and the Saturnalia was intended to restore that happy state of things by giving to servants and slaves a complete holiday. They were on this occasion allowed to appear in the dress of free citizens; were waited upon at their feasts by their masters; were free from every kind of service, and enjoyed the most perfect freedom of speech. The whole season was one of universal rejoicing for all the people of Rome, and the city resounded with the shouts, Io, Saturnalia! Io, bona Saturnalia! Every body ate and drank plentifully, and invited or visited his friends and relations. It was also customary for persons to make presents to one another on this occasion, and clients presented their patrons with wax candles. Children generally received little figures, which were called oscilla, or sigilla, from which the last day of the Suturnalia derived the name "sigillaria." During this festival all business, private as well as public, was suspended; no war was commenced; no battle was fought, and no punishment was inflicted on offenders."

      We cannot fail to be struck with the great similarity there is between this festival and Christmas, even as celebrated among ourselves--in these days and this land of Protestant degeneracy; but the likeness was far more exact in earlier times than now; and even now, in Rome, than among us Protestants. We still have Christmas-holidays, Christmas-gifts, Christmas feastings, invitations, dinners, parties, and revelry. Children are especially privileged to claim their Christmas presents, and even the most devoted to business, public and private, seem constrained to relax and take holiday. Our State Legislatures and the United States Congress suspend their party warfare, and enjoy together, on this occasion, in merry good humor, the Christmas festival. True, much of the fervid and rather bounteous hospitality of former days is now grown out of countenance. The yule-clog has been dropt, and the wassail bowl, thanks to Temperance Societies, is but little circulated. The days of eggnog are now numbered among the nefasti, and the coffin-pie has lost its significance with its shape. The Christmas carol, too, is but seldom heard, and if Christmas eve vigil is still kept by a few, the watchers for the dawn remember not that the observance is in honor of the fact, that the Saviour was born while shepherds watched their [20] flocks by night; but the mystical representatives of Adam and Eve, with their mysterial relation, have together passed into oblivion. With us Protestants, too, who believe not in saint worship, St. Stephen's day, St. John's day, and Innocent's day, the 26th, 27th, and 28th of the month, are all forgotten, as in honor of the martyrdom of the proto-martyr, and the disciple whom Jesus loved, and the massacre of the children of Bethlehem by Herod. Still what was said of many of the western nations when this festival was first instituted, may be said with too much truth of many of us even now:--We have transferred to it many of the follies which prevailed at the Pagan Saturnalia, such as adorning fantastically the churches, mingling puppet-shows and dramas with worship, wild and licentious feasting and merry-making, Christmas jocularity, revelry, and drunkenness.

      With the Church of England and the Lutheran Churches we believe this festival is considered as canonical; but by the Church of Scotland and Dissenters generally it is regarded with no more respect than as a time, which, from the general relaxation of business, may be opportunely embraced for public religions edification. With the Roman Church it is regarded is one of their greatest festivals. Three Masses are said--one at midnight, one at daybreak, and one in the morning; and both in the Greek and Roman Churches, the manger, the holy family, &c., are sometimes represented at large. St. Chrysostom teaches us in what consideration it was held in his time in the following passage. After arguing its superior claims from the fact that all other days were made venerable from the fact of the Lord's incarnation, he proceeds:--"But we do not give this festival the preference merely on this account; but because the transaction on this day was, of all others, the most stupendous. For that Christ when once man should die, was a thing of course. But that when he was God he should be willing to become a man, is beyond measure wonderful and astonishing. Transported with this thought, St. Paul in rapture exclaims, 'Without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh.' For this reason chiefly I love and venerate this day, and commend it to your consideration that I may make you partakers of these sentiments. I therefore pray and beseech, come with all diligence and alacrity, every man first purifying his own house, to see our Lord wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger! Tremendous thought! Oh light of wonder?"

      It seems evident from what we have gathered, that this institution is purely human in its origin--not having been generally [21] established until about the middle of the 4th century--that the time at which it is observed is entirely arbitrary, having evidently no certain relation to the event which it celebrates--and that its observance is distinguished mainly by ceremonies no way suited to its nature, but evidently transferred, with a few modifications and additions from the ancient Roman Pagan festival of the Saturnalia. Human in its origin, arbitrary and irrelevant in its time, and Pagan in its ceremonies, it clearly has no claims whatever upon the true Christian. He is at perfect liberty to disregard it at pleasure, and to demean himself without any further reference to it than his own feelings may incline him to. Yet there are one or two suggestions which may not be unimportant to us. It is true., that in some form or other, this day is regarded by most professing Christians. Society is so organized that this cannot well be avoided. The question is natural and useful--If we respect it at all, how ought we to spend it? Certainly, to the Lord. If we observe it at all, it is because it is called the birth-day of our Saviour, and our rejoicing should be in him. The good tidings of great joy, brought by the angel, should be our theme; and with the multitude of the heavenly host should we praise God, saying, Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace and good will amongst men; for to-day was born to us, in the city of David, a Saviour, who is the Lord Messiah!

W. K. P.      

[The Millennial Harbinger, Third Series, 5 (January 1848): 17-22.]

      W. K. Pendleton's "Christmas Day" was first published in The Millennial Harbinger, Third Series, Vol. 5, No. 1, January 1848. The electronic version of the essay has been produced from the College Press reprint (1976) of The Millennial Harbinger, ed. Alexander Campbell (Bethany, VA: A. Campbell, 1848), pp. 17-22.

      Pagination in the electronic version has been represented by placing the page number in brackets following the last complete word on the printed page. I have let stand variations and inconsistencies in the author's (or editor's) use of italics, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling in the essay. Emendations are as follows:

            Printed Text [ Electronic Text
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 p. 17:     digestable [ digestible
 p. 18:     couucils, [ councils,
            anti-Nicene [ ante-Nicene
 p. 19:     sufficieutly [ sufficiently
 p. 20:     and  nvi ted [ and invited
 

      Addenda and corrigenda are earnestly solicited.

Ernie Stefanik
373 Wilson Street
Derry, PA 15627-9770
stefanik@westol.com

Created 21 November 1998.