PRESBYTERIES AND FAST DAYS.

Evening Star, Issue 4081, 25 March 1876, Page 1 (Supplement)

PRESBYTERIES AND FAST DAYS.

{Weekly Scotsman.) It is a remarkable thing that difficulties and facts which are apparent to the world only become visible to a certain order of Churchmen after they have been obvious to all for years, and even generations. Everybody may talk of them, everybody may feel them, everybody may laugh at them, and only when everybody is tired going through these exercises, the matter dawns slowly as an Arctic day on some minister, who is in consequence called “ rash and hasty, ’ and at his suggestion his brethren tremulously take it into prayerful consideration. Accordingly a committee is appointed, which, being of very sedentary habits, may sit for years and never hatch a proposal; annually report that “ something ought to be done, but that it is not yet prepared to suggest anything”—information which may safely be relied upon—and then it is unanimously reappointed and thanked for its diligence. It has only recently struck Presbyteries that Fast-days are not so successful as they deserve to be; that the people, for whose godly upbringing they are responsible, are not attentive on these occasions to the services of the sanctuary; and that, though many may come to receive a token, others more foresighted, though lightheaded, go to enjoy a holiday in person, and get their token by proxy. The Edinburgh Presbytery, with that masterly activity which characterises all its doings, has taken the matter up; its committee proposed a conference with the Dissenting brethren with whom they have so much in common; and after -Dr Stevenson had made a few remarks in the discussion, at once, and instinctively, “ matter dropped.” The Haddington Presbytery also has been agitated, and its members were fluttering the other day with indistinct views and unformed suggestions. First of all, Mr Caesar opened the discussion, quoted with much learning from that recondite but still accessible work named Chambers’ “Book of Days,” and displayed, on the statement that Fast-days are as old as the Reformation, a laudable amount of information, which had the only drawback of being quite inaccurate. Then Dr Struthers disapproved of all steps in the matter and of the committee’s proposal, and thought that it was enough if non-attenders were prayed for. This last method has its advantages, in being easy, comforting, and compendious ; though whether it would be effectual is rather doubtful. Still it is hard that this religious exercise should be performed on behalf of those who did not wish it, and perhaps need it less than the performers themselves. Was it not during the late popular stir, which moved certain teatables to their centre, that at a meeting “the prayers of the company were asked on behalf of one who had specially desired he might not be prayed for ?” A similar process is recommended to the Presbytery. Now, it is all very well for ministers to be moved to speeches and prayers over the neglect to worship on two or one Fast-day a-year, but let them own that they have a kindly, sneaking sym.pathy with those they mourn over, and fiVea follow their step's while lamenting their practices, Have we merely

dreamt,, or have we really read in “ public prints,” that venerable divines have been sometimes moved to severe complaints over the scanty attendance of members at the opening services of each Synod? Surely it is a fact that while outside many by preference linger in cold and wind, wondering doubtless “ when the sermon will be over,” the preacher has to utter his most eloquent prayers and most impressive discourse in vain, bis eye turning in sweet persuasiveness only to empty pews, his voice never ruffling the somnolent tradesman drawn from his worldly toil to lead the psalmody which no one follows, and painfully feeling that during his finest passages the few who have arrived too soon are carefully “ timing him.” And so those who condemn defections love themselves to defect. Nobody will deny 'their wjsdom, all will even praise their sense, and surely none so well as themselves should know the value of those services they miss. But why rush out at those abstaining from observing certain days enjoined neither by Scripture, Church, nor reason ? and during these lamentations it is worth while asking if these days are worth while retaining. We know that excellent persons love what is old, although it be useless; and esteem a worn-out custom because, like Captain Costigan’s impaired hair-brush, it is “an ancient piece." Now, Dr Story, of Roseneath, has just published a pamphlet “On Fast-days,” which contains much information worth digesting, and is full of truths stated with force and ability; and in it anyone who honors these days because of their antiquity and venerable associations will find much to disturb his holy simplicity. They are indeed not a part of but an excrescence on church services. The Reformers did not observe them ; the Old Kirk did not keep them; no Act of Assembly ever enjoined them. It was the fanatical and illiterate Protesters who introduced them in the ecclesiastical chaos of the 17th century, upturning at the same time many a custom which, when now reintroduced, is condemned as an inr ovation. In fact, the Assembly has only provided a service on the Saturday before Communion, and, accordingly, the only day frequently neglected by the zealous is that which is enjoined, and the day, they maintain, was never ordered. If the Church law does not require that each Communion be preceded by a Past-day, then twice a-year do the city ministers break it, and offend against a duty the neglect of which they denounce so much in others. While they are engaged in looking after the misconduct of others, some kind court might look after them. There is no doubt that the Church standards mean by “ a fast ” a total abstinence from food, and in this sense the Protesters kept their days. If those most staunch in their support would only so observe them, their zeal would quickly cool. Not all are like Mr Sprott, of North Berwick, who would gladly go back to this exercise of bodily piety and discomfort, and feel hungry for his spiritual good; and so long as he makes his rule strictly private, and not a public law for the rest of us, there is no objection, except hygienic, to be taken to it. Perplexed ministers are now anxious to find means of preventing crowds of people leaving the districts which are in a state of humiliation and prayer, and from enjoying themselves in an inebriate state. However, instead of doing away with the guilty Fast-days, some propose that they should be held throughout a district or country at the same time. At present, if persecuted by preaching in one city, one can fly to another; but it is cunningly proposed to stop these impious wanderings, and keep people within the bounds of propriety and their parish. Well, suppose that those who heinously prefer merry-go-rounds in Burntisland to the devotional exercises of Edinburgh are deprived of these amusements, will their devout attendance be secured at church, when they may hear instead what Master Samuel Pepys calls a “ gracy sermon?” Will those who slake their thirsty throats in the public-houses at Renfrew, when staying at home decorously, satisfy their thirsty souls in Paisley? It is rather to be feared that more discontent and tedium will be felt, and more drink needed by the lower classes to relieve it. The Bishop of Peterborough’s opinion may be true, that “it is better that the people should be free than sober,” but by the suggested restraint you decrease freedom, but will not certainly increase sobriety.

The clerical dilemma suggests a strong lay objection to those days which are supposed to prepare Presbyterians for piety. It hardly seems fair to compel a large mass of people to spend a certain time of their life in peculiar dulness and idleness, in order that during it a considerable body of people may engage in this work of preparation. Every year is adding immensely to the number of those who have no connection with the Presbyterian bodies, who keep these two whole days a-year to be a holy fast unto themselves, and even many of the wisest in these bodies utteily fail to see the beauty and benefit of these human ordinances. It is surely a severe social pressure, then, practically to forbid one and all from buying and selling, from business and pleasure. There are, besides, in town and country a very large portion of the poorer classes dependent on each day’s work for their 1

daily food, and by this wise arrangement of the Church, backed by the Erastian law, persons are deprived of food for the body merely because others wish spiritual nourishment. It was all very well in olden time, when there was little expressed difference of opinion ; but it is really too much to have stolid committees silting, and startled divines “ taking steps ” to fasten more tightly a burden which many are sensibly trying to loose. Foolish “ Protesters ” imposed these days—they are wise protesters who now seek to remove them.

Some clergymen, amongst whom is Dr Story, proposed to abolish Fastdays and observe Good Friday only. It is strange that they do not see the insuperable obstacles in the way. Do they wish compulsory observance of the day ? The law will certainly not interfere, and though Sir J. Lubbock gave that holiday to the banks, he did not mean to transfer the clerks from their stools and put them in their pews. Is it to be binding everywhere? Then it will interfere with a myriad commercial interests, and with many market days, which farmers regard with as much pecuniary reverence as ministers revere the oldest and ugliest forms. Is it to be held alike by all Presbyterian sects ? When will the party of Dr Begg, any more than the Jews, keep so superstitious a day, or evangelical persons unite in a devotional spirit on Papist festivals ? The arguments against Fast-days are more striking than the plans to substitute a successor.