Presbyterians Do Not [SHOULD NOT! -- CG] Observe Holy Days
by Samuel Miller.

We believe, and teach, in our public formularies, that there is no
day, under the Gospel dispensation, commanded to be kept holy, except
the Lord's day, which is the Christian Sabbath."

We believe, indeed, and declare, in the same formula, that it is both
scriptural and rational, to observe special days of Fasting and
Thanksgiving, as the extraordinary dispensations of Divine Providence
may direct. But we are persuaded, that even the keeping of these
days, when they are made stated observances, recurring, of course, at
particular times, whatever the aspect of Providence may be, is
calculated to promote formality and superstition, rather than the
edification of the body of Christ.

Our reasons for entertaining this opinion, are the following:

1. We are persuaded that there is no scriptural warrant for such
observances, either from precept or example. There is no hint in the
New Testament that such days were either observed or recommended by
the Apostles, or by any of the churches in their time. The mention of
Easter, in Acts 12:4, has no application to this subject. Herod was a
Jew, not a Christian; and, of course, had no desire to honor a
Christian solemnity. The real meaning of the passage is, as the
slightest inspection of the original will satisfy every intelligent
reader; " intending after the Passover to bring him forth to lie
people."

2. We believe that the Scriptures not only do not warrant the
observance of such days, but that they positively discountenance it.
Let any one impartially weigh Colossians 2:16 and also, Galatians 4:9-
11 and then say whether these passages do not evidently indicate,
that the inspired Apostle disapproved of the observance of such days.

3. The observance of Fasts and Festivals, by divine direction, under
the Old Testament economy, makes nothing in favor of such observances
under the New Testament dispensation. That economy was no longer
binding, or even lawful after the New Testament Church was set up. It
were just as reasonable to plead for the present use of the Passover,
the incense, and the burnt offerings of the Old economy, which were
confessedly done away by the coming of Christ, as to argue in favor
of human inventions, bearing some resemblance to them, as binding in
the Christian Church.

4. The history of the introduction of stated Fasts and Festivals by
the early Christians, speaks much against both their obligation, and
their edifying character. Their origin was ignoble. They were chiefly
brought in by carnal policy, for the purpose of drawing into the
Church Jews and Gentiles, who had both been accustomed to festivals
and holy-days. And from the moment of their introduction, they became
the signal for strife, or the monuments of worldly expedient, and
degrading superstition.

As there were no holy-days, excepting the Lord's day, observed in the
Christian Church while the Apostles lived; and no hint given that
they thought any other expedient or desirable; so we find no hint of
any such observance having been adopted until towards the close of
the second century. Then, the celebration of Easter gave rise to a
controversy; the Asiatic Christians pleading for its observance at
the same time which was prescribed for the Jewish Passover, and
contending that they were supported in this by apostolic tradition;
while the Western Church contended for its stated celebration on a
certain Sunday, and urged, with equal confidence, apostolic tradition
in favor of their scheme. Concerning this fierce and unhallowed
controversy, Socrates, the ecclesiastical historian, who wrote soon
after the time of Eusebius, and begins his history where the latter
closes his narrative; speaking on the controversy concerning Easter,
expresses himself thus: "Neither the ancients, nor the fathers of
later times, I mean such as favored the Jewish custom, had sufficient
cause to contend so eagerly about the feast of Easter; for they
considered not within themselves, that when the Jewish religion was
changed into Christianity, the literal observance of the Mosaic law,
and the types of things to come, wholly ceased. And this carries with
it its own evidence. For no one of Christ's laws permits Christians
to observe the rites of the Jews. Nay, the Apostle hath in plain
words forbidden it, where he abrogates Circumcision, and exhorts us
not to contend about feasts and holy-days. For, writing to the
Galatians, he admonishes them not to observe days, and months, and
times, and years. And unto the Colossians, he is as plain as may be,
declaring, that the observance of such things was but a shadow.
Neither the Apostles nor the Evangelists have enjoined on Christians
the observance of Easter; but have left the remembrance of it to the
free choice and discretion of those who have been benefited by such
days. Men keep holy-days, because thereon they enjoy rest from toil
and labor Therefore, it comes to pass, that in every place they do
celebrate, of their own accord, the remembrance of the Lord's
passion. But neither our Savior nor his Apostles have any where
commanded us to observe it." Socrates, Lib. 5, cap. 21.

Here, then, is an eminent Christian writer who flourished early in
the fifth century, who had made the history of the Church his
particular study; who explicitly declares, that neither Christ nor
his Apostles gave any command, or even countenance to the observance
of festival days; that it was brought into the Church by custom; and
that in different parts of the Church there was diversity of practice
in regard to this matter. With respect to Easter, in particular, this
diversity was striking. We no sooner hear of its observance at all,
than we begin to hear of contest, and interruption of Christian
fellowship on account of it; some quoting the authority of some of
the Apostles for keeping this festival on one day; and others, with
equal confidence, quoting the authority of other Apostles for the
selection of a different day: thereby clearly demonstrating, that
there was error somewhere, and rendering it highly probable that all
parties were wrong, and that no such observances at all, were binding
on Christians.

The festival of Easter, no doubt, was introduced in the second
century, in place of the Passover, and in accommodation to the same
Jewish prejudice which had said, even during the apostolic
age, "Except ye be circumcised, after the manner of Moses, ye cannot
be saved." Hence, it was generally called pascha, and pasch, in
conformity with the name of the Jewish festival, whose place it took.
It seems to have received the title of Easter in Great Britain, from
the circumstance, that, when Christianity was introduced into that
country, a great Pagan festival, celebrated at the same season of the
year, in honor of the Pagan goddess Eostre, yielded its place to the
Christian festival, which received, substantially, the name of the
Pagan deity. The title of Easter, it is believed, is seldom used but
by Britons and their descendants.

Few festivals are celebrated in the Romish Church, and in some
Protestant Churches, with more interest and zeal than Christmas. Yet
when Origen, about the middle of the third century, professes to give
a list of the fasts and festivals which were observed in his day, he
makes no mention of Christmas. From this fact, Sir Peter King, in his
Inquiry into the Constitution and worship, &c. of the Primitive
Church, &c. infers, that no such festival was then observed; and
adds, "It seems improbable that they should celebrate Christ's
nativity, when they disagreed about the mouth and the day when Christ
was born." Every month in the year has been assigned by different
portions and writers of the Christian Church as the time of our
Lord's nativity; and the final location of this, as well as other
holy-days, in the ecclesiastical calendar, was adjusted rather upon
astronomical and mathematical principles, than on any solid
calculations of history.

5. But the motives and manner of introducing Christmas into the
Christian Church, speak more strongly against it. Its real origin was
this. Like many other observances, it was borrowed from the heathen.
The well known Pagan festival among the Romans, distinguished by the
title of Saturnalia, because instituted in honor of their fabled
deity, Saturn, was celebrated by them with the greatest splendor,
extravagance, and debauchery. It was, during its continuance, a
season of freedom and equality; the master ceased to rule, and the
slave to obey; the former waiting at his own table, upon the latter,
and submitting to the suspension of all order, and the reign of
universal frolic. The ceremonial of this festival was opened on the
19th of December, by lighting profusion of waxen candles in the
temple of Saturn; and by suspending in their temple, and in all their
habitations, boughs of laurel, and various kinds of evergreen. The
Christian Church, seeing the unhappy moral influence of this
festival; perceiving her own members too often partaking in its
licentiousness; and desirous, if possible, of effecting its
abolition, appointed a festival, in honor of her Master's birth,
nearly about the same time, for the purpose of superseding it. In
doing this, the policy was to retain as many of these habits which
had prevailed in the Saturnalia as could in any way be reconciled
with the purity of Christianity. They made their new festival,
therefore, a season of relaxation and mirth, of cheerful visiting,
and mutual presents. They lighted candles in their places of worship
and adorned them with a profusion of evergreen boughs. Thus did the
Romish Church borrow from the Pagans some of her most prominent
observances; and thus have some observances of this origin been
adopted and continued by Protestants.

6. It being evident, then, that stated fasts and festivals have no
divine warrant, and that their use under the New Testament economy is
a mere human invention; we may ask those who are friendly to their
observance, what limits ought to be set to their adoption and use in
the Christian Church? If it be lawful to introduce five such days for
stated observance, why not ten, twenty, or five score? A small number
were, at an early period, brought into use by serious men, who
thought they were thereby rendering God service, and extending the
reign of religion. But one after another was added, as superstition
increased, until the calendar became burdened with between two and
three hundred fasts and festivals, or saint's days, in each year;
thus materially interfering with the claims of secular industry, and
loading the worship of God with a mass of superstitious observances,
equally unfriendly to the temporal and the eternal interests of men.
Let the principle once be admitted, that stated days of religious
observance, which God has no where commanded, may properly be
introduced into the Christian ritual, and, by parity of reasoning,
every one who, from good motives, can effect the introduction of a
new religious festival, is at liberty to do so. Upon this principle
was built up the enormous mass of superstition which now
distinguishes and corrupts the Romish Church.

7. The observance of uncommanded holy-days is ever found to interfere
with the due sanctification of the Lord's day. Adding to the
appointments of God is superstition. And superstition has ever been
found unfriendly to genuine obedience. Its votaries, like the Jews of
old, have ever been found more tenacious of their own inventions, of
traditionary dreams, than of God's revealed code of duty.
Accordingly, there is, perhaps, no fact more universal and
unquestionable, than that the zealous observers of stated fasts and
festivals are characteristically lax in the observance of that one
day which God has eminently set apart for himself, and on the
sanctification of which all the vital interests of practical religion
are suspended. So it was among the Israelites of old. As early as the
fifth century, Augustine complains that the superstitious observance
of uncommanded rites, betrayed many in his time, into a spirit of
irreverence and neglect towards those which were divinely appointed.
So it is, notoriously, among the Romanists at the present day. And
so, without any breach of charity, it may be said to be in every
religious community in which zeal for the observance of uncommanded
holy-days prevails. It is true, many in those communities tell us,
that the observance of holy-days, devoted to particular persons and
events in the history of the Church, has a manifest and strong
tendency to increase the spirit of piety. But if this be so, we might
expect to find much more scriptural piety in the Romish Church than
in any other, since holy-days are ten times more numerous in that
denomination than in the system of any Protestant Church. But is it
so? Let those who have eyes to see, and ears to hear, decide.

If the foregoing allegations be in any measure well founded; if there
be no warrant in God's word for any observances of this kind; if, on
the contrary, the Scriptures positively discourage them; if the
history of their introduction and increase mark an unhallowed origin;
if, when we once open the door to such human inventions, no one can
say how or when it may be closed; and if the observance of days, not
appointed of God, has ever been found to exert an unfriendly
influence on the sanctification of that holy-day which God has
appointed, surely we need no further proof that it is wise to discard
them from our ecclesiastical system.