Christmas, or the feast of our Lord’s birth (Nativitas Domini), has this in common with Easter that it also is the center of other festivals which group themselves around it, but it differs from Easter inasmuch as it is an immovable feast, and so falls on a fixed day of the month. The whole Church, and all the sects, agree in observing the 25th December as this date. As it has cost us already some trouble to show how the determination of Easter was arrived at, so the questions which arise in regard to the date of Christmas are by no means few. The answer to these questions entails a special and critical investigation into several points of history, which, though it may not prove interesting to everyone, will nevertheless be full of information to those who undertake to study it.
Formerly it was taken for granted that Christ had actually been born on this day, and, accordingly, the learned were of opinion that the Church had observed it from the beginning as the day of His birth. Even at the present day, it will be difficult for many to give up this idea. But there is no Christmas among the Christian feasts enumerated by Tertullian, Origen, and the recently published Testament of Jesus Christ.
On the contrary, there is clear proof that even in the fourth and fifth centuries it was unknown in some parts of the Church, where its introduction, at a much later period, can be proved historically. To this evidence we shall now turn our attention, beginning with Egypt.
At the beginning of the fifth century the learned monk, John Cassian, betook himself to Egypt to study the observances of the monasteries there, and later on, between 418 and 427, he wrote down the result of his observations in his Collations. He informs us that the bishops of those parts at that time regarded the Epiphany as our Lord’s birth-day, and that there was no separate festival in honor of the latter. He calls this the “ancient custom.”[1]
This old custom, although generally observed at that time in Egypt, had soon to give place to a new one. For under Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, Bishop Paul of Emesa, while on a visit to him, preached on the festival of our Lord’s nativity, and the date on which this happened was the 29th Chijak, or 25th December, in the year 432. Christmas, then, had been introduced into Egypt before this time, that is to say, between 418 and 432,[2] and from then onwards it was firmly established, as the existing Calendars of subsequent date show.
The learned Bishop Epiphanius of Salamis lived in Cyprus at the end of the fourth century. In his
answer to the Alogoi he gives the chronology of our Lord’s life, according to which the 6th January is the day of our Lord’s birth, and the 8th November the day of His baptism in Jordan. For him the Epiphany was plainly the festival of Christ’s nativity.[3]
The old custom was still in force in Jerusalem about 385. Our Lord’s birth was celebrated there with great rejoicings, not on the 25th December, but on the 6th January. For according to the evidence of the Pilgrim from Bordeaux, the festival on which the gospel was read, giving the account of the Presentation of Christ in the Temple and His meeting with Simeon and Anna—Candlemas Day—was celebrated forty days after the Epiphany and not forty days after Christmas.[4] Epiphany must then have been the festival of the Nativity. In another passage, where the same pilgrim has reason to name the chief festivals of the year, she mentions as such only Epiphany and Easter.[5] And so at that time there was no special festival of Christmas observed in Jerusalem.
Among the witnesses for the old custom, we find Ephrem Syrus, who informs us that, in his time, the church of Mesopotamia commemorated the Incarnation of the Son of God on the thirteenth day after the winter solstice, in the month when the light begins to increase, i.e. on the 6th January.[6]
It is a well-known fact that the festival of the 25th December, as Christ’s birth-day, was entirely unknown to the ancient churches of Armenia and Mesopotamia, and remained so partially until on in the fourteenth century.[7] In the most of the great churches of the East, on the contrary, this feast was introduced during the last decades of the fourth century, in others somewhat later. Most interesting particulars concerning the introduction of Christmas in various localities are extant, and, since they refer to its introduction, we are safe in concluding, from the historical evidence before us, that these churches had not celebrated Christmas until then. This is the case with regard to Constantinople.
The second capital of the empire had long been a stronghold of Arianism, so that the orthodox had
dwindled down to a mere handful, and no longer possessed a church of their own in the city. During this period Christmas was certainly not celebrated in Constantinople. Not till after the death of Valens, and the elevation of Theodosius the Great to the empire (19th January 379), did the Catholics breathe freely once more. They received as bishop Gregory of Nazianzus, formerly Bishop of Sasima, but then living in retirement at Seleucia in Isauria. He began his labors as a stranger and sojourner in a small private chapel which he called the Anastasia. Here, on the 25th December 379 or 380, Christmas was celebrated for the first time in Constantinople, as he himself
informs us, and on this occasion, he delivered his thirty-eighth homily.[8] Thus one of the first acts of the restorer of Catholicism in the capital was the introduction of the new festival. In the above homily indeed, he says nothing about its being celebrated for the first time, but in the following homily (c. 14), when speaking of the previous Christmas, he calls himself its originator. Gregory’s activity in the capital was unfortunately of short duration. Soon after the meeting of the second General Council, in 381, he was compelled through the intrigues of his opponents to retire from his post.
It would not be impossible, and certainly would not be surprising, if Gregory’s expulsion also imperiled his new institution, and that the festival of Christ’s Nativity would have to be reintroduced. At any rate, a late and not very reliable writer, though one not to be passed over in this connection, speaks of the emperor Honorius as having been the means of introducing the feast of Christmas at Constantinople. On the occasion of a visit to Constantinople he persuaded his mother and his brother Arcadius to celebrate the feast of Christmas, and in the Roman manner.[9] This must have taken place after the year 395.
In Cappadocia the separation. of the two feasts, Epiphany and Christmas, had been effected in 380,
at least as far as Nyssa was concerned. For Gregory of Nyssa, in his funeral oration on Basil, speaks of the festival of Christ’s birth as well established.[10] He says the same in his two sermons for the feast of St. Stephen.
With regard to the circumstances connected with the introduction of the festival at Antioch, we are fully informed by St. Chrysostom in a sermon he preached there on the 20th December 386.[11]
The festival had been known in Antioch for about ten years already, and a certain party there among the faithful were in the habit of celebrating it publicly, but its official introduction was first effected by Bishop Flavian, who was seconded in this by St. John Chrysostom, recently ordained priest in the February of the same year. Chrysostom began his priestly activity with a course of sermons against the thorough-going Arians—the Anomæans. These discourses treat of the nature of God, His incomprehensibility, and triune personality, but the preacher had to interrupt the course from time to time in order to deal with other matters affecting the faithful themselves, such as their superstitious respect for, and imitation of, the Jews and their customs. Some went so far as to regard oaths taken in the synagogue as more sacred and binding than those taken in the church. Many Christians observed the Jewish festivals as well as their own. On this account Chrysostom departed from his first subject and directed his first four sermons against the Jews. Then his eloquence was directed to the task of winning over the faithful of Antioch to the observance of Christmas.
It was on the festival of the Antiochene martyr Philogonius that he announced to his hearers that on the following 25th December Christmas would be celebrated for the first time in the Church of Antioch. The day had been observed in the Went from the beginning, but only during the last ten years had the knowledge of it penetrated to Antioch. For his own part, he had for a long time made his prayer in secret that the festival should be kept also in Antioch. He had found many, especially of the lower orders, in favor of it, but many, on the other hand, were opposed, and so the introduction of the festival had been delayed.
The efforts of the great preacher were crowned with success. A very large number of the faithful
were present in the church when the new festival was celebrated. The sermon which Chrysostom delivered on the occasion has happily come down to us.[12] In the introduction he says he wished to speak to them himself concerning the festival over which there had been so much controversy in Antioch. Some considered it a mere innovation, but others knew that it was observed in the West from Thrace to Cadiz. This last assertion was an exaggeration, as the next words of Chrysostom themselves show. He says he proposes to commend the feast to the devotion of his hearers on three grounds: first, because the feast has spread with remarkable rapidity, and has met with so much favor in all directions;[13] secondly, because the time of the census taken in the year of Christ’s birth can be determined by ancient documents preserved in Rome; thirdly, the year of our Lord’s birth can be computed from the time of the angel’s appearance to Zachary in the Temple. Zachary, as High Priest, had entered into the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement. The Jewish Day of Atonement fell in September. Six months afterwards the angel came to Mary, and nine months later Christ was born, i.e. in December. Chrysostom concludes with an attack upon those who do not believe in the incarnation of the Son of God.
All this, however, as far as the determination of the date is concerned, rests upon an insecure foundation. Since Zachary was only an ordinary priest, and not the High Priest, his entry into the Holy of Holies cannot therefore be identified with that of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement. But this is of little importance, if on independent grounds these calculations could still point to the month of December, though the 25th need not on this account have been the precise day on which our Lord was born.
When we consider the facts, we see that it was no mere accident that Christmas began to be celebrated in the East just at this particular period, and that its introduction was due to the influence of the great men whom we have named.
It was the moment when Catholics began successfully to repel Arianism; it was just those who attacked Arianism with most vigor and success who promoted the spread of the new festival in the East. We must add to this the evidence afforded by secular enactments. Neither the laws of Valentinian II., nor the revisers of the Codex Theodosianus in 438, nor the Breviarium Alaricianum of 506, regard the 25th December as a festival established by law. It was made to appear for the first time as such by Tribonianus in the Codex Juistinianus. From these additional facts, we gather
that Christmas was of later introduction in the Church than Easter or Whitsunday. In such matters secular law generally follows the lead of ecclesiastical law. If Christmas had been celebrated in the Church from the beginning, one can see no reason why it should not have enjoyed equal privileges with Easter and Whitsunday. Still there was a law of the Emperor Arcadius as early as 400 which included Christmas among the days on which at least the games of the circus were forbidden.[14]
Chrysostom, in the sermon referred to above, states plainly that, at the time when the attempt was being made to introduce the festival in the East, it was already celebrated in Rome. Our attention is thus naturally directed to Rome, and it will be interesting to learn how long it had been so observed there. This question we must now consider more fully.
John, Bishop of Nicaea, informs us that the Roman Church had begun under Pope Julius I. (337-352) to celebrate the birth of our Lord on the 25th December.[15] This pope, with the assistance of the writings of Josephus, had ascertained that Christ was born on the 25th December. John of Nicaea then recurs substantially to the reckoning which we have already produced from Chrysostom, according to which the appearance of the angel to Zachary in the Temple happened on the 23rd September and the Annunciation on the 25th March. From these data it followed as a matter of course that the 25th December was the day of Christ’s birth. John had gained this information from an alleged correspondence between Cyril of Jerusalem and Julius, from which he quotes. But this correspondence is certainly not authentic, as will appear from one of the facts quoted from it further on.[16] But the fact that it cannot stand the test of criticism does not prove the spuriousness of the treatise of John of Nicaea in itself, nor the incorrectness of everything else contained in it.
When we turn to the authentic evidence for the practice of the Roman Church on this point, our attention is at once arrested by one document which is quoted under very different names—Anonymus Cuspiniani, Catalogus Bucherianus, the Calendar of Furius Philocalus, or the Chronographer of 354. These different ways of quoting the same document are apt to lead to confusion. They are due to the fact that from time to time different scholars have published larger or smaller portions of the document, without ever placing it before the public in its entirety. The different portions of which it is composed are of a rather heterogeneous character, and, accordingly, as each student was interested in this or that portion, he published as much of it as concerned his own studies, leaving the remainder unnoticed. In order to form a correct judgment of the evidential value of this document, and the importance of the facts recorded in it, it will be well at this point to describe it more particularly, although to do so may lead us away from our main subject.
Briefly, we have to do with a collection of chronological data belonging to the time of Constantine,
in which the unknown compiler collected together from official sources all kinds of chronological and historical notices, such as might be useful for people in official positions. His object was to supply them with a compendium of all that might be of practical assistance to them. John Cuspinianus (1473-1529) was the first to make use of this work, because he recognized that the list of Roman consuls contained in it is the most correct that has come down to us. In his Commentarius de Consulibus Romanis, published at Basel after his death, in 1552, a part of the work is printed.[17]
Other students then edited such portions as related to the special studies they had in hand, such as Onuphrius Panvinius, Ægidius Boucher, S.J.,[18] Lambeck, Henschen, Cardinal Noris, Eccard, Preller, and especially Roncalli. Finally, in the transactions of the Akademie der Wissenschaften of Saxony for 1850, Mommsen printed almost the whole of it with the exception of the later portions. A collection of the allegorical illustrations of the document, as far as they exist, has also been published,[19] and thus at length this remarkable document has been placed within the reach of all to whom it may be of interest.
The different sections therein contained are partly of ecclesiastical and Christian origin, and partly secular and heathen. Of purely ecclesiastical origin, in addition to the table for calculating Easter, are the Depositio Episcoporum, the Depositio Martyrum, and the list of popes. The remaining sections fall into two classes: they are either entirely heathen, or they have interpolations of a Christian and ecclesiastical character. This is especially the case with the lists of consuls. Up to 753 U.C. [U.C., Urbe Condita, meaning “from the founding of the city of Rome”] they contain merely the names of the consuls, with notices of the dictators; from 753 U.C. to 55 A.D. [Anno Domini, meaning “Year of our Lord”] four ecclesiastical notices have been interpolated, but none from thence onwards. These four notices relate to the date of Christ’s birth and death, the arrival of the Apostles Peter and Paul in Rome, and their death there. These notices, naturally, did not originally form part of the lists of consuls. Who added them? Philocalus himself or someone else?
Since the list of consuls contains ecclesiastical interpolations, it is all the more remarkable that none have been added to the Calendar. Where else would we more naturally look for them, and where could they have been more easily introduced? Why did not Philocalus set down the birth of Christ here under the 25th December, the Natalis Invicti, since he considered it of sufficient importance to be interpolated into the lists of consuls, with which it is out of keeping?
But if, it is objected, the date of Christ’s birth is also given in the Depositio Martyrum, let us examine this document more closely. As the title indicates, it contains only the days of the death and burial of Roman martyrs and other martyrs venerated in Rome in the earliest ages, e.g. Cyprian, Perpetua, Felicitas. To these there are added two exceptions: VIII. Kal. Jan. (the birth of Christ at Bethlehem) and VIII. Kal. Mart, (the feast of St. Peter’s Chair). Neither of these belong in any sense to a Depositio Martyrum, and on this account, De Rossi wished to change the title of the document to Feriale Ecclesiae Romanae. But in this he was mistaken. The MSS. have the title Depositio Martyrum alone, and to change it would be arbitrary. The two days mentioned above, the 25th December and the 22nd February, must rather be struck out as later additions which do not belong to the document.
That such entries do not appear in the Calendar is explained, in my opinion, by the fact that soon afterwards succeeding emperors forbade the games of the circus and energetically suppressed heathen customs. When this had been done, the Calendar would no longer be of any practical use, and so it would not be worthwhile to make alterations in it. The other chronological pieces, however, had a permanent value, and it naturally occurred to those who used them later on to adapt
them to the altered circumstances of the time.
We must now examine more minutely the notice of Christ’s birth given us in this document. It runs as follows: I p. Chr. Ccesare et Paulo sat. XIII. Hoc cons. Dns. ihs. XPC natus est VIII. Kal. Jan. de ven. luna XV.[20] Which means, Christ was born during the consulship of C. Caesar Augustus and L. Æmihus Paulus (754 U.C.), on the 25th December, which was a Friday, on the fifteenth day of the new moon.
This notice gives rise to several questions. First of all, the Epact is not correct, as according to our tables it ought to be 11.[21] But this need not detain us, as two or three peculiarities of this kind are to be met with in this list of the consuls. The error concerning the day of the week is more important. To expose this error we need only give the dominical letters for the years in question:—
751 U.C, Dom. let. F = 25th Dec, Wednesday.
752 U.C, Dom. let. E = 25th Dec, Thursday.
753 U.C, Dom. let. DG = 25th Dec, Saturday.
754 U.C, Dom. let. B = 25th Dec, Sunday.
The compiler of this chronology might have set down the birth of Christ in either 754 or 753 U.C. 754 is a possible year, although the 25th December 753 is more probable, yet in either case the day of the week would be wrong. In 752, the 25th December fell on Thursday, but since 753 was a leap year, the dominical letter advances two places, and Friday is passed over. At the same time, there has been a fairly constant tradition that the 25th of December fell on a Wednesday in the year of Christ’s birth. In any case, the notice that the 25th December fell, in this year, on a Friday is based on a mistaken reckoning. This notice, then, does not represent a tradition, but is merely the result of a calculation which unfortunately is incorrect. Consequently, the whole interpolation is undeserving of credit. We now pass on to a second point.
While all writers before 354 fix the year of Christ’s birth by the year of the Emperor’s reign, here, for the first time, it is fixed by the year of the consuls. This is a marked departure from the original usage. The forty-first or forty-second year of Augustus correctly converted into a consular year would have run: Augusto XIII. et Silvano conss. or Lentulo et Messalino, which would also be the year 751 or 752 U.C, according as the year of the emperor is taken as “effektiv” or not, i.e. according as one places Christ’s birth in the first or second half of the year.[22]
Moreover, when the chronographer dates the year of Christ’s birth in the consulship of “Caesar and Paulus” (754 U.C.), he anticipates the Dionysian era some two hundred years before Dionysius, and, further, when, in accordance with a very ancient tradition, he places the year of Christ’s death in the consulship of the “duo gemini” (29 A.D.), he thus only allows twenty-eight and a quarter years for Christ’s earthly life, while St. Luke (3:23) speaks of Him as having well-nigh thirty full years. Whoever he may have been who inserted this notice under the consulship of Caesar and Paulus in the chronology, he certainly made a mistake. He also stands alone in placing Christ’s birth in the year 754 U.C., for the writers and annalists who wrote at a later date, such as Sulpicius Severus, Orosius, Prosper, Hydatius, and even Cassiodorus, give other dates.
The anonymous compiler of this chronology differs also, both as to contents and form, from those who preceded him. While Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, the pseudo-Cyprian, etc., fix the year of Christ’s birth by a year of the emperor, i.e. the forty-first or forty-second of Augustus, it is given in this document in the form of a consular year, and while the former gives 751-752 U.C. as the year, the latter gives 754. All this creates great difficulty in accepting the evidence of the compiler.[23]
We must now deal with the day of the month given in the chronology, the 25th December, which, strictly speaking, alone is of importance in connection with the end we have in view, although it cannot well be separated from the previous question as to the year. It has recently been thought that Hippolytus afforded some very early evidence on this point, owing to a passage in his commentary on Daniel bearing upon the subject. However, this hope has proved deceptive,[24] since the passage in Hippolytus proves to be the addition of a much later hand; we are thus left with the chronology of 354 as the earliest evidence for placing the birth of Christ on the 25th December.
The result of our investigation of this compilation, made up of historical, chronological, and other materials, proves that the compiler, in collecting his materials in 354, added to the lists of consuls, which naturally he did not draw up himself, the notice that Christ was born under these particular consuls on the 25th December, because it was at that time the generally accepted date. It could only be widely accepted, when the festival of Christ’s birth had already been celebrated on this day, not recently but during a considerable period. It is very improbable that it had just been introduced by any one person in particular, such as the Bishop of Rome, for the first years of the reign of Liberius were very troubled and ill-suited for the introduction of so important an innovation. Moreover, history shows that a thing like this cannot be done all at once by a stroke of the pen, or at the will of an individual, even though he be the Bishop of Rome, but is rather the outcome of a long period of preparation.
The compiler clearly bears witness that Christmas existed already in Rome in 354, but not that it had then been only recently introduced there, still less that Christ was actually born on the 25th December. This statement is unsupported by evidence prior to 354, for the passage in Hippolytus is an interpolation, the Depositio Martyrum and the Depositio Episcoporum have been worked over by the hand of the same compiler, who may have made additions to them to the same effect without prejudice to their original contents.
Nevertheless, attempts were made to maintain the 25th December on other grounds. As we have seen, Chrysostom made an attempt of this kind, and even in recent times there have been people who repeated the attempt, without falling into the mistake of making Zachary a High Priest. They reckoned as follows:—when the angel announced to Zachary his son’s birth, the course of Abia, to which Zachary belonged, was performing the service of the Temple.[25] At the dedication of the Temple under Solomon it was arranged that the twenty-four priestly families mentioned in 1 Paral.
24:7-13 should relieve one another in orderly succession throughout the year, each being responsible for the Temple services for a week. The first course was that of Joiarib, the course of Abia being the eighth. After the return from exile, these courses of priests were re-established, and continued to discharge their functions as before, so soon as the new Temple had been dedicated.[26]
According to the assertion of Josephus,[27] this arrangement survived to his own time, and was consequently in existence at the commencement of the Christian era.
Since the dedication of both Temples took place in autumn, it has been calculated that the course of Abia must have been on duty in the year of the Lord’s birth on the day of Atonement, which fell at that season. This was arrived at by calculating both forwards and backwards from the destruction of Jerusalem. But in the former case, beginning with the restoration of the Temple, the calculation is thrown into confusion by the fact that twice during the existence of the second Temple the regular performance of divine service was interrupted.[28] In the time of the Maccabees, under Antiochus Epiphanes, the interruption lasted for three years. In this case what was to be done? The succession of the courses might be resumed after the interruption as if nothing had happened, or, at the reestablishment of worship, that course might undertake duty whose turn it was to serve at that particular time of the year, or, finally, one might start afresh with the course of Joiarib. In all these cases it would be said that the ancient order had been maintained, but which of the three possibilities just mentioned was actually chosen is not told us.
Even if it were told us, the reckoning would still be without solid foundation. For each course of priests served in turn twice a year, leaving however eighteen days, or in a leap-year twenty-nine, still to be accounted for. The difficulty is not lessened by the fact that during the week of the Passover, several courses were on duty in the Temple at once. Granted that the course of Abia was on service in spring and again in autumn, St. Luke unfortunately does not inform us at what season of the year the angel appeared to Zachary, or even if this event happened during the Passover, when the course of Abia might quite possibly have been on duty as well.
We are no better off if we begin our reckoning from the destruction of Jerusalem, when the course of Joiarib is said to have been on duty,[29] for again we do not know in what season of the year the angel appeared. If we take the autumn as certain, then we assume what must be proved. Even if the difficulties are fewer in this method of proceeding, on account of the shortness of the period, it still remains a question whether, when the services of the Temple came to an end in A.D. 70, they ceased on the 8th Gorpiæos, when the citadel of Jerusalem was taken, or on the 10th Lous, the day of the destruction of the Temple itself.[30] It is impossible by these means to prove that the 25th December is really the day of Our Lord’s birth.[31]
It follows from this that there is no sort of existing proof that the Redeemer was actually born on this day. We may add, moreover, that even when this opinion had met with acceptance from many, and in times when Christmas had become one of the popular festivals, there were not wanting some here and there who expressed doubt on the question. This is the case in an ancient sermon on Christmas included among the spurious writings of St. Jerome: “Whether our Lord Jesus Christ
was baptized today, or whether He was born, has given rise to different opinions in the world, and according to the different traditions different views are maintained.”[32] Although this sermon is incorrectly attributed to St. Jerome, it nevertheless certainly belongs to his time, for it refers to the gilded temples of Rome (aurata capitolia).
What then was the amount of knowledge possessed by antiquity concerning the true day of Christ’s birth? It may not be out of place to attempt to answer this question. There are only a few passages in which the oldest writers in the Church refer to the matter, but from these it is easy to see that, even in the earliest times, nothing was known for certain, and that those who were interested in the question did not agree among themselves. This was the case, for example, in Alexandria in the second century. A party existed there who regarded the 25th of the Egyptian month Pachon (i.e. 20th May) as the day of our Lord’s birth. The Basilidians of Alexandria, however, observed it on the 15th Tybi (i.e. 10th January), and passed the preceding night in devotional readings. The majority celebrated Christ’s birth on the 11th Tybi (i.e. 6th January).[33]
In a treatise of the third century formerly attributed to St. Cyprian, which deals with kindred subjects, a very different view appears. The anonymous writer of this treatise (De Pascha Computus), which was composed in A.D. 243, inclines to the view that the 28th March was the true day of Christ’s birth,[34] and, contemporary with this, Hippolytus sets it down on the 25th of the same month, provided this is the correct interpretation of the inscription on his statue. In the fourth and fifth centuries, the view became prevalent that Christ was born on the 25th December, and St. Augustine uses expressions which seem to imply he was of this opinion.[35]
The four gospels contain nothing in support of any of these dates. Their authors attached no importance to this point, although their aim in writing was to give information concerning our Lord’s life, and, even if the date was known to them, we must allow for the difficulty of fixing dates of past events in accordance with Jewish modes of reckoning time. However, it is possible that our Lord was born at the beginning of winter. The census which took place at the time of His birth, rendered it necessary that the inhabitants of Judaea should be enrolled each in his own city. On this account, the Roman authorities would see that the census was made at a season when agricultural work had ceased, such as the late autumn or early winter. There can have been no ecclesiastical tradition concerning the date of the Nativity, since in the earliest times it was commemorated by no special festival. The Epiphany, which commemorated several events, took the place of such a festival.
These are the difficulties which stand in the way of accepting the 25th December as the actual date of the Nativity, and they must be taken into account by anyone who desires to form a judgment for himself on this matter. The other questions relating to the same point are more easily disposed of.
Whether the accepted date is correct or not, we find it definitely set down by the chronographer of 354, who directly states that Christ was born on the 25th December (natus est octavo Kalendas Januarias), while it follows indirectly from his words that this day was solemnly observed as the day of His nativity. The Calendar ends with the year 354, and accordingly Christmas was observed then in the same way as at present. The year 354 brings us within the pontificate of Liberius, and it is just in his pontificate that we find further authentic evidence concerning the feast.
During his pontificate Liberius gave the veil to Marcelina, an elder sister of St. Ambrose. This took place on the day of our Lord’s birth (Natalis Salvatoris), and on this occasion Liberius delivered a sermon preserved for us by Ambrose in his De Virginitate. In this work he recalls to his sister’s memory what the Pope had said: “When thou sealedst thy vow of virginity in Peter’s by changing thy habit on the birth-day of the Redeemer—on what more fitting day could it have taken place than that on which the Virgin (Mary) brought forth her child—and in the presence of many of God’s hand-maidens who strove for thy companionship, he (Liberius) said, ‘Thou hast desired excellent espousals, my daughter. Thou seest what a crowd of people have come together to celebrate the birth-day of thy Bride-groom, and that no one goes away from hence unnourished. He it is who, when invited to the marriage, changed water into wine. He will vouchsafe the true secrets of virginity to thee, who until now hast been subject to the beggarly elements of nature. He it is who, with five loaves and two fishes, satisfied four thousand men in the wilderness.[36] He could have satisfied more had more been there. Finally, He has invited still more to thine espousals, not to give them barley-bread, but a Body from heaven.'” [37]
Liberius here represents taking the vows of religion under the familiar figure of a marriage. The marriage feast always forms part of every marriage, and accordingly it was the duty of the Bridegroom whom Marcelina had chosen to provide one. He had changed water into wine and fed thousands with a few loaves, but now He feeds a still greater number with His Mystical Body in the Holy Eucharist. This is the thought running through the Pope’s address.
St. Ambrose does not inform us of the year in which the ceremony took place at which Liberius spoke the above words. Liberius had been elected bishop of Rome (17th May 352) in troublous times under the Emperor Constantius, a strong Arian. As he refused to communicate with the Eusebius and protected St. Athanasius, he was banished to Bercea at the end of 355, where he was compelled to remain until 357. The Archdeacon Felix, relying on the Emperor’s support, allowed himself to be consecrated bishop in his stead, but found no following in Rome. On this account, Constantius consented to the recall of the lawful bishop, and Liberius resided in Rome for the remainder of his pontificate, and died there in 366.
It is more probable that Marcelina’s clothing with the religious habit took place during the latter part of this pontificate. For according to the received opinion, St. Ambrose was born about the year 340,[38] and thus in 353 he would have been only thirteen years old, and although his sister was older, yet in 353 she would not have been twenty-five, the canonical age for taking the veil.[39] Still it is not impossible that the ceremony and the address of Liberius took place between 352 and 354, and at any rate this much is certain that it took place on the 25th December and not on the Epiphany (6th January), according to the view formerly held.[40] There is no evidence that the Epiphany was observed in Rome, as it had been in the East, as the day of Christ’s birth, and Liberius in this address does not say that the commemoration of the miracles of the loaves and of the changing water into wine was being celebrated precisely on the day of Marcelina’s taking the veil, i.e. on the day of the Savior’s birth (Natalis Salvatoris). These things were alluded to only because of their connection with the train of thought followed by Liberius in his address.
Nothing can be gathered from the words of Liberius as to when Christmas was first observed in Rome on the 25th December. In any case, it did not come into existence suddenly, but would require time, and, like other festivals, a considerable period would have to elapse before it became general and gained official recognition. Contemporary evidence on this point is wanting; one ancient witness, unfortunately not altogether reliable, speaks of Julius I. and not Liberius as the originator of Christmas.
We must now conclude by giving the view we have arrived at. In Rome a distinctive custom had arisen of celebrating Christ’s nativity on the 25th December, while in other quarters it was celebrated on the 6th January. How this was brought about must remain a matter for conjecture. It has been thought that in some places heathen festivals of various kinds were kept in the month of December; in particular, the Kikellia[41] was kept at Alexandria on the 25th December, in Bostra and Pella, a festival of local observance[42] and in Rome, the Saturnalia began on the 17th December and lasted until the 23rd.[43] It is only natural that the winter solstice should give rise to a festival, and find its place marked in the Calendar of Feasts. Indeed, in the Roman Calendar of much later date—that of Philocalus—the 25th December is marked as the birth-day of the unconquerable Sun-God [Natalis Soils Invicti).
Since on the 21st December the sun reaches its lowest point, and then begins once more to rise higher in the heavens, man, in his simplicity, marked the day on which this change in the sun became perceptible as the new birth or birth-day of the sun, the invincible Sun-God. What was more natural for the Christians of that age than to connect this obvious natural event with the thought of the nativity of Him who is the Light of the World! Even if the Holy Scriptures had not suggested this idea, it must have presented itself to the Christian mind. The comparison of Christ with the sun, and of His work with the victory of light over darkness, frequently appears in the writings of the Fathers. St. Cyprian[44] spoke of Christ as the true sun (sol verus). St. Ambrose[45] says precisely, ” He is our new sun (Hic sol novus noster). Similar figures are employed by Gregory of Nazianzus, Zeno of Verona, Leo the Great, Gregory the Great, etc.[46]
Every child knows that Simeon addressed the newborn Messias as “a light to the revelation of the Gentiles,” and, since the Messias is also called by the Prophets the light in the darkness and the Sun of Justice, it is easy to see how such expressions passed into the Church’s liturgy for this festival.[47] It was natural for the Romans to set down the birth-day of this new Sun on the day marked of old time in their Calendar as a Natalis Solis, and observed as a festival by all the heathen inhabitants of Rome.[48] The choice of the day cannot be due to the desire to supplant the heathen festival, for it was not a festival of any special importance. But the similarity between the natural fact (the solstice) and the revolution in the spiritual sphere (Christ’s nativity), was sufficient to suggest the idea. It was not necessary to wait for the time of Constantine in order to hit upon this idea.
We must now return once more to the usages of the Church of Jerusalem and the festival observed there. The 6th January, indeed, was called in Jerusalem Epiphany, nevertheless the nativity of Christ formed an especially prominent feature of the commemoration.
A detailed description of the function is given in Silvia’s diary. Unfortunately, the beginning is missing,[49] and the account opens with the return of the great procession which took place annually from Jerusalem to Bethlehem the evening before the feast. The next morning, the procession returned to Jerusalem and proceeded to the Church of the Anastasis, which was richly decorated. The monks remained all night in the church at Bethlehem, which, all through the octave, remained in festal array.[50] A procession to Bethlehem, on the Epiphany would have no meaning, if the baptism of Christ was the only event commemorated at that feast, for this, of course, took place in the Jordan. In Jerusalem, as in the other Eastern Churches, no special Christmas festival had been as yet instituted, still at the commencement of the fifth century there were some who regarded the Epiphany as the day of Christ’s nativity in the flesh, although, as St. Jerome says,[51] the Son of God did not reveal Himself in flesh but rather concealed Himself. Indeed, if we are to believe Cosmas Indicopleustes, who lived in the middle of the sixth century, the nativity of Christ was commemorated at Jerusalem, and there only on the Epiphany—”a superstitious fancy,” as he calls it.[52]
On the other hand, it has been stated that Bishop Juvenal (425-458), who obtained for the Church of Jerusalem patriarchal rank, introduced the feast of Christ’s birth.[53]
Perhaps it was especially difficult to establish this festival in Jerusalem on the 25th December because another festival was already observed there on that day—the commemoration of David and the Apostle St. James.[54] Their commemoration, along with that of St. Joseph, is kept both by the Greek Church and the Church of Jerusalem on the Sunday before Christmas.[55]
A document already referred to, dating from the end of the ninth or beginning of the tenth century, affords an interesting proof of the manner in which these matters which we have placed before the reader were regarded at a later date. John, Bishop of Nicaea, who flourished about the year 900, endeavored to induce the Armenians to adopt the 25th December as the day of Christ’s birth, and set down in an elaborate treatise the reasons he thought calculated to influence them. This composition is especially interesting because in it the introduction of Christmas is ascribed to a particular individual, none other than Pope Julius I. (337-352). Bishop Cyril of Jerusalem (348-386) is said to have corresponded with him on this question. Even if, from point of view of dates, this were not impossible, the letter of Cyril would in itself give rise to suspicion.[56] For Cyril would have been more likely to introduce or establish the feast on another day, while it is historically certain it was not yet observed in Jerusalem in 385.
In this pretended letter, Cyril alleges as a reason for transferring the feast to a different day from the Epiphany, that it is impossible for the inhabitants of Jerusalem to keep both feasts on the same day with befitting solemnity. Bethlehem lies three miles west, and the Jordan fifteen miles east of Jerusalem. It is stated in this letter that a procession went to both places on the same day, and so it was impossible for the clergy to accompany both. The often-quoted diary of the Gallic Pilgrim[57] shows us that the procession to Bethlehem actually took place, but she is silent about a procession
to the Jordan. This is first mentioned by Gregory of Tours in the sixth century.[58] It only was possible when the Nativity had been transferred to another day. The writer of the letter has antedated a later practice and certainly was not Bishop Cyril of Jerusalem.
The manner in which this letter brings forth evidence in favor of choosing the 25th December for the Nativity of Christ is also interesting. Titus, says the supposed Cyril in this letter to Pope Julius, had carried off all the books of the Jews to Rome after the destruction of Jerusalem. There they still remain, and Julius might make a search to see if the true birth-day of Christ cannot be discovered.[59] Julius then discovered from the writings of Josephus that Zachary had seen the vision of the angel in the Temple in the seventh month, on the Day of Atonement, which on that occasion had fallen on the 23rd September. On that day his son, St. John the Baptist, was conceived, who was born on the 24th June following, but Christ, according to St. Luke 1:36, was born six months later, on the 25th December.
As regards the liturgical celebration of the feast, the oldest sermons on the Nativitas Domini which have come down to us, are those of Zeno of Verona († 380).[60] They are purely moral exhortations, and throw no light upon the date of the feast. He has no sermon for the Epiphany, and it may be inferred he did not observe it or that it was identified with the Nativity.
The representation of the crib on a side-altar or some other conspicuous place in the church is a special feature of the Christmas festival at the present day. This remains in the church until Epiphany, or even to the 2nd February. The Christmas crib dates back to St. Francis of Assisi, who, with the permission of the Pope, set up in 1223 for the first time a representation of the child Jesus in the manger.
It is also the custom to celebrate three Masses, of which the first, according to the ancient use, commenced at midnight. As the words of the Mass show, this first Mass commemorates the eternal generation of the Son from the Father, the second commemorates His Incarnation and birth into this world, the third His birth through grace, in the hearts of sinners. The Gelasian sacramentary mentions the trina celebratio. The custom is one which reaches back to early Christian times. Gregory the Great mentions it in Hom. viii. in Evang. The Leonine sacramentary contains nine different formularies for Christmas, but the other western rites, including the Mozarabic, have only one Mass for the feast. The Menology of Basil Porphyrogenitus gives the flight of Mary into Eg3rpt on the 26th December, and St. Stephen only on the following day.
Since the 25th December was only chosen for reasons of a more or less accidental and external character, so too the days which immediately follow—St. Stephen, St. John the Evangelist, and the Holy Innocents—have no real connection with Christmas, although they are of very ancient institution. The 26th December was already a special festival in the fourth century, as appears from the sermons of St. Augustine (Sermo 314, c. 1), though he knows nothing of the two following days. The 220th sermon, which celebrates the Holy Innocents, is spurious.[61] They appear, however, in the African Calendar of the sixth century. On the Innocents’ Day in the Middle Ages the schoolboys used to elect a bishop who was nothing more than their leader, and the ceremony was quite harmless. For this ceremony, as well as for the crib and other popular customs still practiced,
the reader is referred to Heuser’s elaborate articles in the Kirchenlexikon, iv2., 1395-1436.
The introduction of Christmas and its appointment on the 25th December brought about the establishment of three other festivals: 1. the feast of the Circumcisio Domini, eight days after the Nativity, according to St. Luke ii. 21, (postquam consummati sunt dies octo, ut circumcideretur puer, vocatum est nomen ejus Jesus). 2. The Annunciation on the 25th March, which is also the day of Christ’s conception, and so is placed nine months before the 25th December. The historical evidence for this day is on a par with that for Christmas. 3. The Nativity of St. John the Baptist, on the 24th June. Another consequence was that the festival of the Occursus Domini, i.e. the meeting of our Lord with Simeon in the Temple, on Candlemas Day, which was observed in Jerusalem before the introduction of Christmas, had to be transferred to another day. According to the regulations of the Jewish Law in Lev. 12:6, the period of uncleanness after birth lasted forty days. And according to St. Luke 2:22, Mary submitted to the Law in this respect. So long as our Lord’s birth was commemorated at Epiphany on the 6th January, the 15th February was the fortieth day after the Nativity, and so, as a matter of fact, the festival of the Occursus Domini was celebrated in Jerusalem on this day in 385.[62] But when the Nativity came to be celebrated on the 25th December, the other festival had to be placed thirteen days earlier, on the 2nd February, as it is at the present time.
[1] Cassian, Coll. 10, c. 2: “Mos antiqua traditione servatus.”
[2] Usener, i. 1, 320, has investigated the circumstances which attended the introduction of Christmas in different countries, and his conclusions have met with entire recognition from Harnack, The.ol. Literaturztg., 1889, 199, et seqq., and from Dom Suitbert Baumer, Katholik, 1890, i. 1-16. Exception was taken to certain points by Duchesne, Bull. Critique, 1890, No. 3. These circumstances have been already dealt with by Baillet, viii. 682 et seqq.
[3] Epiphanius, Adv. Hær., 2, 1; Hear., 51, c. 16 and 24.
[4] Cf. c. 26, ed. Geyer, 60; ed. Gamurrini, 84.
[5] C. 49, ed. Geyer; ed Gamurrini, 109.
[6]. Lamy, Ephraemi Syri hymni et sermones, 1., Mechl., 1882, 10, on the Benedictus, 2, 415. This hymn is translated into German by Zingerle in the Kempten Bibl. d. Kirchenvdter, ii. 27.
[7] Cf. Herfele, History of Councils, vi., 1st ed., 604, 675, etc
[8] Gregor, Naz. Hom. 38 in Theophania ; Mignk, Patr. Or., xxxvi.
[9] John, Bishop of Nicea, in Combefis, Hist. liter. Monoth., Paris, 1648, 306, BAUMSTARK (Oriens Christ., 1902, 441-446) is in favor of the date 398 to 400.
[10] Gregor, Nyss., Or. Fun.; Migne, Patr. Gr., xlvi. 789. Cf. ib., 701 and 725. Basil was dead before 1st January 379.
[11] The date 386 depends upon the order of the sermons referred to. Usener, who places them at unnecessary wide intervals, gives 388, Clinton 387, Combefis, Montfaucon, and Tillemont 386. The period from February to December is ample for the above sermons.
[12] Chrysost., Hom, in Nativ. I. Chr.; Montfaucon, ii. 352; Migne, Patr. Gr., x. 2, 351.
[13] Chrysostom distinguishes between the knowledge of the day of Christ’s birth and its solemn celebration. The former had been known for ages in Rome, but the celebration of the festival, on the contrary, had spread rapidly in all directions, and this rapid diffusion of the festival shows in its turn that the 25th December is really the day of Christ’s birth.
[14] Cod. Theod., 2, 8, 27. Cf. the law of the year 425, ib., 15, 5, 5.
[15] Combefis, Hist. Hear. Monoth. , 304: Combefis was the first to discuss the question, and his disquisition is excellent, though now forgotten. Gf. Mignb, viii. 964-968. Combefis has also collected all the material for the history of Christmas in his Bibl. Patrum Cone, 300 et seq.
[16] Combefis, Hist. Haer. Monoth., 302 and 314, A. 4) considered it suspicious.
[17] Roncalli, Chronica Vetustiora, Introd., xxix.
[18] Bucherius, in its Latinized form.
[19] Jos. Strzygowski, Die Kalenderbilder des Chronographen vom Jahre 354, with 30 plates, Berlin, 1888, published for the Archeological Institute. The rest is to be found in Mon. Germ. Hist. Auctores Antiquissimi, t. ix., vol. i., fasc. i., Berol., 1891. The Natales Csesarum and the Calendar are printed in the Corp. Inscr. Lat.
[20] Mommsen, Abhandl. der Sachs. Akademie d. Wissensch., 1850, 1, 618. The figure XIII. signifies the Epact. This proves that the 1st January fell on a Saturday, and that B was the dominical letter.
[21] L’ Art de verifier les Dates dep. J. Chr., I. 111.
[22] [This refers to the ancient practice of dating the years of an emperor’s reign, not from the actual date of his accession, but from the New Year’s Day either preceding or following his accession. The years of the emperor’s reign were thus brought into artificial agreement with the calendar year. Numbering the years of the emperor’s reign from the actual date of his accession is, in Mommsen’s phrase, taking them as effektiv— Trans.]
[23] I have attempted to show how this difference is to he explained in an article in the Innsbr. Zeitschr. filr Kath. Theologie, xv. (1891), 619 et seqq.
[24] Vid. Appendix 6.
[25] St. Luke 1:5, 8.
[26] 1 Esdr. 6:18.
[27] Antiq. 7:14, 7.
[28] Antiq. vii. 11, 7, 1 ; 12, 6, 4 ; 7, 6. 1 Mach. i. 57 ; iv. 18.
[29] So Lamy (Apparattis Chronol. et Geogr., 61) referring to the Tractate Erachin and Taanit.
[30] Jos., Bell. Jud., 4j 8, 5; 4, 5. According to Ideleb (i. 400, 433 Josephus employs the Syro-Macedonian names of the months, not with the intention of adjusting them to the Julian Calendar, but merely as Greek names for the Jewish months.
[31] The attempt to fix the time of Christ’s birth by the help of the course of Abia was undertaken by Scaliger, abandoned as useless by Petavius, resumed by B. Lamy. In modern times, it was resumed by Seyffarth (Ghronol. Sacra, Leipsig, 1846, 97 et seqq.), Weigl (Theol. und Chronol. Abhandlungen ilber das wahre Geburts- und Sterbejahr Christi, Sulzbach, 1848), and Stavabs (Tüb. Theol. Quartalschr, 1866, 201 et seq.).
[32] Hieron, Opera, ed. Migne, xi. 220. It is evident from St Jerome’s commentary on Ezechiel that his views on the subject were not those of the preacher of this sermon. The sermon for the 25th December, published by Morin (Anecdota Mareds., iii. 2, 392, et seqq.), agrees with the sermon quoted above.
[33] Clemens Alex., Strom., i., ed. Sylburg, 340.
[34] Cypriani, Opera, ed. Hartel, ii. 266.
[35] Augustin., Sermo 190, 1; 192, 3; 196, 1.
[36] Luke 9:13 seqq.
[37] Ambr., De Virg., 3, 1; Migne, xvi. 219.
[38] Pauunus, Vita Ambr., c. 4, and his life in the Benedictine edition of his works, c. 7- The chronology of the youthful period of St. Ambrose’s life is unfortunately obscure.
[39] Cone. Cathag., iii. can. 4; Bruns, i. 123.
[40] Usener (272 seqq.) starts with the preconceived opinion that Liberius delivered his address on the 6th Jan. 353, and so is of opinion that Christmas was celebrated for the first time in Rome on the 25th Dec. 353. On the other hand, Duchesne {Bull. Grit., 1890, No. 3, p. 41 seq.), having the circumstance in view that the Depositio Episcoporum begins the year with the 27th Dec. and the Depositio Martyrum with the 26th Dec, thinks he has proof for holding that the 27th Dec. for a long time already, indeed even from about 243, had been a marked day in the Church’s Calendar, and, accordingly, that the 25th Dec. had been kept as the Natalis Domini as early as the third century. We leave these points to the reader’s discretion. Christmas was kept in Rome certainly before 363.
[41] Mommsen Röm. Qesch., v. 481.
[42] Marquardt-Mommsen, Rom. Altert., vi., 2nd. ed., 688.
[43] Hospinian (fol. iii.) and others held that the 25th December was chosen purposely in order to supplant the Saturnalia. But the Saturnalia did not last over the 25th, although Maximus of Turin seems to think it did..
[44] De Orat. Bom., 35. Sermo, 7, 1, 3; Migne, Patr. Lat., xvii. 614
[45] Sermo, 7, 1, 3; Migne, Patr. Lat., xvii. 614.
[46] Zeno Ver., Tract., 2, 9, 2, calls Christ “Sol noster, sol verus.” Gbegor. I., Horn., 29 in Evang., c. 10: ” Quis solis nopiine pisi Christus designatur? ” Prud., Cathem., 11, 1: ”Quid est. quod arctum circulum sol jam recurreiisdeserit?” Gregor. Naz., Ora/. m X ^umma, calls Christ the sun.
[47] On the Vigil: “Sidus refulget jam novum ”; at Lauds: ” Orietur sicut sol salvator mundi”: in the Preface: “Per incarnati Verbi mysterium nova mentis nostras oculis lux tuae claritatis infulsit”: on the octave: “Tu lumen et splendor Patris”; in the hymn: “In sole posuit tabernaculum suum”: in the antiphons: ”Hodie descendit lux magna in terris. In sole posuit tabernaculum suum” etc.
[48] Maximus Taur., Hom., 103; Mione, Pair. Lat., Ivii. 491.
[49] Peregr. Silv., 82 (59 cod.), ed. Geyer, c. 25.
[50] Peregr. Silv., 84 (60), ed. Geyer, 77. In c 49, No. 3, the chief festivals are Easter and Epiphany.
[51] In Ezech. 1, 3; Migne. Patr. Lat., xxv. 18, written about A.D. 411.
[52] Cosmas Indicopleustes, ed. Galland. Bibl., xi. 461; Migne, Ixxxviii. 198.
[53] So Usener, who quotes a passage from a sermon of Basil of Seleucia. Migne, Patr. Lat., Ixxxv. 469.
[54] Cosmas, op. cit. 462.
[55] Evangeliarium Hierosol, 482, 494. See Usener, 323, 327.
[56] Combefis, Hist. Haer. Monoth. 314 A, 4.
[57] Pwegr. SUv., 84 (60), ed. Geyer, 77.
[58] Gregor Tur., Microl, 1, 88; Migne, Pair. Lot., Ixxi. 783.
[59] Combefis, op. cit. 302 E.
[60] Opera, Zenonis Ver., ed. Migne, Patr. Lat.,xi. lib. 2, tract 7-9. Lib, i. tract 13 may be spurious.
[61] Sermo 10 de mnctis according to the old enumeration, sermo 220 inter suppos. according to the new.
[62] Peregr. Silv., 84 (60).