Posted on 12/21/2002 11:21:49 AM PST by DouglasKC
Christmas Before Christ?
The Surprising Story
Most people know the Bible doesn't mention - much less sanctify - Christmas. Does it make any difference as long as it's intended to honor God and bring families together?
by Jerold Aust
|
S |
"I don't think you should tell kids that there is a Santa Claus," he said. "That's the first lie you tell your children." Instead, "tell kids that Santa's a character we made up to celebrate a time of the season." Otherwise "when kids get to be 5 ... they realize their parents have been lying to them their whole life."
Earlier in the year the Arts & Entertainment cable television channel aired a program about Christmas titled Christmas Unwrapped: The History of Christmas. The promo for this program read:
"People all over the world celebrate the birth of Christ on December 25th. But why is the Savior's nativity marked by gift- giving, and was He really born on that day? And just where did the Christmas tree come from?
"Take an enchanting journey through the history of the world's favorite holiday to learn the origins of some of the Western world's most enduring traditions. Trace the emergence of Christmas from pagan festivals like the Roman Saturnalia, which celebrated the winter solstice."
These two programs addressed the fact that Santa Claus is fictitious and that Christmas and its trappings emanate from pagan Roman festivals. By no means are these the only sources of information about the background of Santa Claus and Christmas.
Is there more to these ancient traditions and practices than meets the eye? And, more important, does it make any difference whether we continue them?
Celebration of the sun god
It may sound odd that any religious celebration with Christ's name attached to it could predate Christianity. Yet the holiday we know as Christmas long predates Jesus Christ. Elements of the celebration can be traced to ancient Egypt, Babylon and Rome. This fact doesn't cast aspersions on Jesus; it does, however, call into question the understanding and wisdom of those who, over the millennia, have insisted on perpetuating an ancient pagan festival that has devolved through much of the world as Christmas.
Members of the early Church would have been astonished to think that the customs and practices we associate with Christmas would be incorporated into a celebration of Christ's birth. Not until several centuries had passed would Christ's name be attached to this popular Roman holiday.
As Alexander Hislop explains in his book The Two Babylons: "It is admitted by the most learned and candid writers of all parties that the day of our Lord's birth cannot be determined, and that within the Christian Church no such festival as Christmas was ever heard of till the third century, and that not till the fourth century was far advanced did it gain much observance" (1959, pp. 92-93).
As for how Dec. 25 became the date for Christmas day, virtually any book on the history of Christmas will explain that this day was celebrated in the Roman Empire as the birthday of the sun god. Explaining how Dec. 25 came to be selected as the supposed birthday of Jesus, the book 4000 Years of Christmas says: "For that day was sacred, not only to the pagan Romans but to a religion from Persia which, in those days, was one of Christianity's strongest rivals. This Persian religion was Mithraism, whose followers worshiped the sun, and celebrated its return to strength on that day" (Earl and Alice Count, 1997, p. 37).
Not only was Dec. 25 honored as the birthday of the sun, but a festival had long been observed among the heathen to celebrate the growing amount of daylight after the winter solstice, the shortest day of the year. The precursor of Christmas was in fact an idolatrous midwinter festival characterized by excess and debauchery that predated Christianity by many centuries.
Pre-Christian practices incorporated
This ancient festival went by different names in various cultures. In Rome it was called the Saturnalia, in honor of Saturn, the Roman god of agriculture. The observance was adopted by early Roman church leaders and given the name of Christ ("Christ mass," or Christmas) to conciliate the heathen and swell the number of the nominal adherents of Christianity.
The tendency on the part of third-century Catholic leadership was to meet paganism halfway-a practice made clear in a bitter lament by the Carthaginian philosopher Tertullian.
In 230 he wrote of the inconsistency of professing Christians. He contrasted their lax and political practices with the strict fidelity of the pagans to their own beliefs: "By us who are strangers to Sabbaths, and new moons, and festivals [the biblical festivals spelled out in Leviticus 23], once acceptable to God, the Saturnalia, the feasts of January, the Brumalia, and Matronalia, are now frequented; gifts are carried to and fro, new year's day presents are made with din, and sports and banquets are celebrated with uproar; oh, how much more faithful are the heathen to their religion, who take special care to adopt no solemnity from the Christians" (Hislop, p. 93).
Failing to make much headway in converting the pagans, the religious leaders of the Roman church began compromising by dressing the heathen customs in Christian-looking garb. But, rather than converting them to the church's beliefs, the church became largely converted to non-Christian customs in its own religious practices.
Although at first the early Catholic Church censured this celebration, "the festival was far too strongly entrenched in popular favor to be abolished, and the Church finally granted the necessary recognition, believing that if Christmas could not be suppressed, it should be preserved in honor of the Christian God. Once given a Christian basis the festival became fully established in Europe with many of its pagan elements undisturbed" (Man, Myth & Magic: The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Mythology, Religion, and the Unknown, Richard Cavendish, editor, 1983, Vol. 2, p. 480, "Christmas").
Celebration wins out over Scripture
Some resisted such spiritually poisonous compromises. "Upright men strove to stem the tide, but in spite of all their efforts, the apostasy went on, till the Church, with the exception of a small remnant, was submerged under Pagan superstition. That Christmas was originally a Pagan festival is beyond all doubt. The time of the year, and the ceremonies with which it is still celebrated, prove its origin" (Hislop, p. 93).
The aforementioned Tertullian, for one, disassociated himself from the Roman church in an attempt to draw closer to the teachings of the Bible.
He wasn't alone in his disagreement with such trends. "As late as 245 Origen, in his eighth homily on Leviticus, repudiates as sinful the very idea of keeping the birthday of Christ as if he were a king Pharaoh" (The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th edition, Vol. 6, p. 293, "Christmas").
Christmas was not made a Roman holiday until 534 (ibid.). It took 300 years for the new name and symbols of Christmas to replace the old names and meaning of the midwinter festival, a pagan celebration that reaches back so many centuries.
No biblical support for Santa Claus
How did Santa Claus enter the picture? Why is this mythical figure so closely aligned with the Christmas holiday? Here, too, many books are available to shed light on the origins of this popular character.
"Santa Claus" is an American corruption of the Dutch form "San Nicolaas," a figure brought to America by the early Dutch colonists (The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th edition, Vol. 19, p. 649, "Nicholas, St."). This name, in turn, stems from St. Nicholas, bishop of the city of Myra in southern Asia Minor, a Catholic saint honored by the Greeks and the Latins on Dec. 6.
He was bishop of Myra in the time of the Roman emperor Diocletian, was persecuted, tortured for the Catholic faith and kept in prison until the more tolerant reign of Constantine (ibid.). Various stories claim a link from Christmas to St. Nicholas, all of them having to do with gift-giving on the eve of St. Nicholas, subsequently transferred to Christmas Day (ibid.).
How, we might ask, did a bishop from the sunny Mediterranean coast of Turkey come to be associated with a red-suited man who lives at the north pole and rides in a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer?
Knowing what we have already learned about the ancient pre-Christian origins of Christmas, we shouldn't be surprised to learn that Santa Claus, too, is nothing but a figure recycled from ancient pagan beliefs.
The trappings associated with Santa Claus-his fur-trimmed wardrobe, sleigh and reindeer-reveal his origin from the cold climates of the far North. Some sources trace him to the ancient Northern European gods Woden and Thor, from which the days of the week Wednesday (Woden's day) and Thursday (Thor's day) get their designations (Earl and Alice Count, pp. 56-64). Others trace him even farther back in time to the Roman god Saturn and the Greek god Silenus (William Walsh, The Story of Santa Klaus, pp. 70-71).
Was Jesus born in December?
Most Bible scholars who have written on the subject of Jesus' birth conclude that, based on evidence in the Bible itself, there is no possible way Christ could have been born anywhere near Dec. 25.
Again we turn to Alexander Hislop: "There is not a word in the Scriptures about the precise day of [Jesus'] birth, or the time of the year when He was born. What is recorded there, implies that at what time soever His birth took place, it could not have been on the 25th of December. At the time that the angel announced His birth to the shepherds of Bethlehem, they were feeding their flocks by night in the open fields ... The climate of Palestine ... from December to February, is very piercing, and it was not the custom for the shepherds of Judea to watch their flocks in the open fields later than about the end of October" (Hislop, p. 91, emphasis in original).
He goes on to explain that the autumn rains beginning in September or October in Judea would mean that the events surrounding Christ's birth recorded in the Scriptures could not have taken place later than mid-October, so Jesus' birth likely took place earlier in the fall (Hislop, p. 92).
Further evidence supporting Jesus' birth in the autumn is that the Romans were intelligent enough not to set the time for taxation and travel in the dead of winter, but during more-favorable conditions. Since Joseph's lineage was from Bethlehem, and since he had to travel from Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem, and since his expectant wife Mary traveled with him, it would have been nearly impossible for Joseph and Mary to make the trip in the winter. As recorded by Luke, Mary delivered Jesus in Bethlehem during the time of census and taxation-which no rational official would have scheduled for December.
What difference does it make?
The Bible gives us no reason-and certainly no instruction-to support the myths and fables of Christmas and Santa Claus. They are tied to the ways of this world and contrary to the ways of Christ and His holy truth. "Do not learn the way of the Gentiles," God tells us (Jeremiah 10:2).
Professing Christians should examine the background of the Christmas holiday symbols and stop telling their children that Santa Claus and his elves, reindeer and Christmas gift-giving are connected with Jesus Christ. Emphatically they are not! God hates lying. "These six things the LORD hates, yes, seven are an abomination to Him: a proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that are swift in running to evil, a false witness who speaks lies, and one who sows discord among brethren" (Proverbs 6:16-19).
|
Recommended Reading Does it matter to God which days and customs we celebrate to honor Him? Why do so many of our holidays have strange customs sanctioned nowhere in the Bible? Many people are shocked to discover the origins of most popular holidays. They're also surprised to find that the feast days God commands in the Bible-the same days kept by Jesus Christ and the apostles-are almost universally ignored. Be sure to request your free copies of the booklets Holidays or Holy Days: Does It Matter Which Days We Keep? and God's Holy Day Plan: The Promise of Hope for All Mankind. |
Christ reveals that Satan the devil is the father of lies (John 8:44). Parents should tell their children the truth about God and this world's contrary and confusing ways. If we don't, we only perpetuate the notion that it is acceptable for parents to lie to their children.
Can a professing Christian promote a pagan holiday and its symbols as something that God or Christ has approved? Let's see what God thinks about people using customs and practices rooted in false religion to worship Him and His Son. We find His views clearly expressed in both the Old and New Testament.
God specifically commands His people not to do what early church leaders did when they incorporated idolatrous practices and relabeled them Christian. Before they entered the Promised Land, God gave the Israelites a stern warning: "Take heed to yourself that you are not ensnared to follow them [the inhabitants of the land],... and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying, 'How did these nations serve their gods? I also will do likewise.'
"You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way; for every abomination to the LORD which He hates they have done to their gods ... Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it" (Deuteronomy 12:30-32, emphasis added throughout).
Many centuries later the apostle Paul traveled to and raised up churches in many gentile cities. To the members of the Church of God in Corinth, a city steeped in idolatry, Paul wrote: "... What fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God ... Therefore 'Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, and I will receive you.' ... Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God"
(2 Corinthians 6:14-17; 7:1).
Instead of allowing members to rename and celebrate customs associated with false gods, Paul's instructions were clear: They were to have nothing to do with them. He similarly told Athenians who were steeped in idolatry, "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30).
God alone has the right to decide the special days on which we should worship Him. Jesus Christ plainly tells us that "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:24). We cannot honor God in truth with false practices adopted from the worship of nonexistent gods.
Jesus said: "This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Mark 7:6-7). With God no substitutes are acceptable. It makes no difference that Christians mean well when they observe Christmas. God is not amused or pleased.
The knowledge of how to honor Almighty God, who made us, preserves us and gives us eternal life, has been made available to you. Will you honor God or follow the traditions of mankind?
That is an excellent analysis and was very instructive. Why do you consider yourself an athiest?
#1 Because if there is a Creator, I have not met him/her. If there is a Creator, then that person is actually someone we could touch as a physical manifestation on the Earth (albeit an all powerful, immortal being) in this present day material world. #2 Because I do not agree with anyone on the nature of what God could be if evidence of such a personage were revealed to exist (this includes various translations of the Bible and those of other religious texts). #3 Human and all other life is finite and there is no life in the Universe other than that which is on this Earth. #4 Most importantly, it does not matter. If there is a God, our lives are pre-destined/pre-determined - - according to your theological perspective, the case of Job, Moses, Jesus and others, asserts this is the case. The chemistry of genetics also lends to the idea that life is pre-determined and possibly not beyond human controls. There are many more...
My understanding of this scripture has always been that it refers to Ashera poles named after the Goddess Ashera. In modern times, we refer to them as totempoles.
Old Testament scripture has numerous references to these Ashera poles. These are not Christmas trees.
Sigh! Having come out and been delivered from the false doctrines of the apostate Christian church, I know how their heads work. Baal-worshippingJezebel says to the Church as she seduces them to commit spiritual fornication (Re 2:20), "Just say a blessing on everyone even those who don't agree with you 'cause they must be enemies and keep doing your own thing, it is okay to be right in your own eyes and you are excused from obedience because you are a Christian and G~d loves you too much to require you to obey and not worship Mammon and will bless your every idolatrous, sinful behavior." You are probably relying on: Mt 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.
I say to you, like Paul: Gal 4:16 Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
It appears that you put your piece on this thread without reading the thread which is to help those who are true and wish no longer to be deceived to come out of Deception. Yours piece missed the point and your blanket blessings amount to "not receiving instruction" (Pr 1:7) because you haven't read the thread. If you had read it you would know Christmas is NOT a holy day, but a satanic unholy day with ample use of "mother and child" images associated with the occult; the satanists know that and laugh themselves silly at the Christians who don't believe the Truth. Those "Christians" are deceived (something Jesus warned about) and have become atheistic Secular Humanists. BTW Derek Prince* writes that Humanism is a demon.
>Funny how people rarely go looking for the meaning behind things such as Christmas trees and prefer to simply denounce them as pagan. Same could be said for Christmas itself. Merry Christmas to you all!
All that the L~rd said is being fulfilled. He said many would be deceived, that men loved darkness more than light and few there be that find eternal life. The dry unfruitful branch of the apostate Church which loves tradition and lies more than the Truth is being whacked off and readied for the fire.
_____________
* Derek Prince, They shall Expel Demons, (Baker Books, 1998), p. 84.
cc to ALS: It is likely that "the easy prey" who are taken captive at the will of the devil will not know what I am talking about. 2 Ti 2:26. There are far greater problems involved in this falling away than just Christmas.
The more scripture is used, the more you are offended. It looks like your real beef may with the Author of Life Himself. I can understand rejecting as false the lifestyle of hypocritical, apostate Christianity. There is, however, a real Jesus...Yeshua...who will meet personally those who recognize and serve Him as L~rd and savior, putting Him first above the things of the world and do things His way. Check out v. 17-19 below:
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Interesting. I was having this very same debate with Christians on another thread. They also insist that Christ is now a physical manifestation now (albeit an all powerful, immortal being.)
I disagree. God created everything through Christ. Our entire universe, everything we can or can not see is creation. Every quark, every proton. Every black hole. Every element. Space and time itself. I don't know if you accept all of the bible, but I base my beliefs on it:
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
The nature of God is completely outside of the created. God isn't bound by anything in his creation. He's eternal indeed because he's outside of time. If he's outside of time then he's outside of the creation and invisible, or unseeable, to us. He does intereact, but we can only sense and describe his presence in the vaguest of terms...spirituality, love, intellect, rationality, creativeness, etc.
As a Christian I don't believe I will ever be able to "see" God as a physical manifestation until Christ returns and I become like him and then am able to see him as he is:
1Jo 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
In short the divine entity known as God cannot be composed of anything in the universe that he created. If he were than he would be bound by the same laws of physics as us. He wouldn't be eternal, or immortal, or all powerful.
#2 Because I do not agree with anyone on the nature of what God could be if evidence of such a personage were revealed to exist (this includes various translations of the Bible and those of other religious texts).
See above.
#3 Human and all other life is finite and there is no life in the Universe other than that which is on this Earth.
I agree. The possiblity that life exists elsewhere is slim to none. That only makes the case for a creator stronger to me.
#4 Most importantly, it does not matter. If there is a God, our lives are pre-destined/pre-determined - - according to your theological perspective, the case of Job, Moses, Jesus and others, asserts this is the case.
Not correct. The courses of our lives are known to God, but the choices are always ours. We are led but God, but not dragged. Every choice we make is entirely of our own free will. Knowing the outcome is not the same as making it happen.
The chemistry of genetics also lends to the idea that life is pre-determined and possibly not beyond human controls.
The creation is not the creator. Given enough time and intellect we can figure out how certain parts of the creation operate and behave. Nothing new there, we've been doing it for millenia. But what we can never do is go beyond our reality.
At any rate, I thank you for your contributions to this thread.
lol...you have been wonderful on this thread and have spoken some great truths. But I know that before God tapped me on the shoulder and showed me the truth that I could have been staring the truth right in the face and never seen it. I would have even argued that it wasn't even there in front of me. Nobody will listen until God wants them to.
Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
The nature of God is completely outside of the created. God isn't bound by anything in his creation. He's eternal indeed because he's outside of time. If he's outside of time then he's outside of the creation and invisible, or unseeable, to us. He does intereact, but we can only sense and describe his presence in the vaguest of terms...spirituality, love, intellect, rationality, creativeness, etc.
Sounds like exactly what Hobbes said in Leviathan:
Part IV. Of the Kingdom of DarknessChap. xlv. Of Demonology and other Relics of the Religion of the Gentiles.
[15] It is also evident that there can be no image of a thing infinite: for all the images and phantasms that are made by the impression of things visible are figured. But figure is quantity every way determined, and therefore there can be no image of God, nor of the soul of man, nor of spirits; but only of bodies visible, that is, bodies that have light in themselves, or are by such enlightened.
BTW, what is the steeple on most churches all about?
Excellent point!
I expected as much, I am used to such a response when questioning someone's irrational claim that they are "pagan." This is something I do know a lot about.
Most of the neo-pagan groups who criticize Christians are 10 times worse than the Christians they constantly and unfairly defame. Satan, Shaitan, Set or Seth ("Set-hn" as spoken in the ancient Hebrew) is a pagan entity, the "adversary" of Judaic theology. (A "pagan" is anyone not Judaic, Christian or Muslim.)
-
I am actually supposed to care what you think about my beliefs?
Obviously, you do...
-
But I do not and will not allow you to define me.
Not my definitions, as I had stated. You are the one who gave the broad definition without specific terminology.
I am asking are you a Hellenistic pagan, Celtic pagan, Roman or Egyptian pagan, (etc... ad nauseum), or just a Chaos practitioner?
Or are you just a non-Judaic, non-Christian?
Words do mean things and when you so carelessly throw them out there, I see it and will question it. Language is the totality of a civilization, this is why Marxists and the other Leftists (my enemies) attack our language.
I question the idea that you even know what you believe, since you can't seem to tell me in a clear construction of language and have to resort to informal fallacies of logic in response.
Aristotle was a Hellenistic "pagan," whose categorical logic is what I am using here, along with his knowledge given to us in Poetics.
As an atheist, I maintain that the societal practice of abortion is ritual mass murder upon the altars dedicated to idolatrous vanities, a collective human sacrifice to pagan idols. I don't care much for that type of paganism.
CONSIDER YOUR WORDS CAREFULLY, THEY DO HAVE CONSEQUENCES AND GIVE PEOPLE IMPRESSIONS YOU MAY NOT INTEND...
Anyone care to dispute the following with logical arguments ???
Set, Satan, and Shaitan are the same. "Satan" is a Hebrew word for the pagan Egyptian Set. Satan, Shaitan, Set or Seth ("Set-hn" as spoken in the ancient Hebrew) is a pagan entity, the "adversary" of Judaic theology. (A "pagan" is anyone not Judaic, Christian or Muslim.)
The Greeks called Set "Typhon," who was the war god assigned to Upper Egypt. This also represents another contravention to the "accepted" etymologies of words like "typhoon" in English, which is erroneously listed as the Cantonese "tai fung" in many dictionaries. English has more commonalties with Greek and Latin.
The Egyptian priest Manetho associated the Jews with the Hyksos and Moses with the Egyptian priest Osarsiph. It was at this time that the belief the Jews worshipped an ass – an animal holy to the Egyptian god Set was established. Both the Jews and the pagan Egyptians used the labels (i.e., Satan, Set, Seth, or "Set-hn" as spoken in the ancient Hebrew) to defame each other. How fitting that amidst this epic struggle and bloody conflict, the entity known as Satan was born into the World. Such conflict continued through the Maccabean period (with Antiochus Epiphanes), and continues into modern times on several fronts.
There is a recurring theme that alludes to the hostility between the pagan Egyptians and the Judaic. Often it is claimed by the Neo-Pagans that Satan is only found in Christianity. How can this be if Satan is undeniably a Hebrew word adapted from the name of the pagan Egyptian god Set? This cannot be reconciled with the fact that it is a Hebrew word...
Thomas Hobbes, having been fluent in both Greek and Latin by age 9, has this to support my assertions in Leviathan:
Part III. Of a Christian Commonwealth.Chap. xxxviii. Of Eternal Life, Hell, Salvation, and Redemption.
[12] And first, for the tormentors, we have their nature and properties exactly and properly delivered by the names of the Enemy (or Satan), the Accuser (or Diabolus), the Destroyer (or Abaddon). Which significant names (Satan, Devil, Abaddon) set not forth to us any individual person, as proper names do, but only an office or quality, and are therefore appellatives, which ought not to have been left untranslated (as they are in the Latin and modern Bibles), because thereby they seem to be the proper names of demons, and men are the more easily seduced to believe the doctrine of devils, which at that time was the religion of the Gentiles, and contrary to that of Moses, and of Christ.
[13] And because by the Enemy, the Accuser, and Destroyer, is meant the enemy of them that shall be in the kingdom of God, therefore if the kingdom of God after the resurrection be upon the earth (as in the former Chapter I have shewn by Scripture it seems to be), the Enemy and his kingdom must be on earth also. For so also was it in the time before the Jews had deposed God. For God's kingdom was in Israel, and the nations round about were the kingdoms of the Enemy; and consequently, by Satan is meant any earthly enemy of the Church.
Consider this, from Hobbes' Leviathan, in 1668:
Part IV. Of the Kingdom of DarknessChap. xlvii. Of the Benefit that proceedeth from such Darkness
[21] ...For from the time that the Bishop of Rome had gotten to be acknowledged for bishop universal, by pretence of succsession to St. Peter, their whole hierarchy (or kingdom of darkness) may be compared not unfitly to the kingdom of fairies (that is, to the old wives' fables in England, concerning ghosts and spirits and the feats they play in the night). And if a man consider the original of this ecclesiastical dominion, he will easily perceive that the Papacy is no other than the ghost of the deceased Roman empire sitting crowned upon the grave thereof. For so did the Papacy start out of the ruins of that heathen power.
[22] The language also which they use (both in the churches and in their public acts) being Latin, which is not commonly used by any nation now in the world, what is it but the ghost of the old Roman language?
[23] The fairies, in what nation soever they converse, have but one universal king, which some poets of ours call King Oberon; but the Scripture calls Beelzebub, prince of demons. The ecclesiastics likewise, in whose dominions soever they be found, acknowledge but one universal king, the Pope.
[24] The ecclesiastics are spiritual men and ghostly fathers. The fairies and ghosts inhabit darkness, solitudes, and graves. The ecclesiastics walk in obscurity of doctrine,...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.