The Origin and Growth of Sunday Observance in the Christian Church

SYLVESTER, CONSTANTINE, AND THE LORD’S DAY

It is not because of any real connection between these names and this title that they are here placed together, but because of certain associations that have been ascribed to them, to examine which is the purpose of this chapter. OGSO 75.1

In a recently written article on the change of the Sabbath I made this remark: “Sylvester was bishop of Rome during most of the reign of Constantine. He decreed that Sunday should be called the Lord’s day.” In this I rested upon the testimony of the “Magdeburg Centuries,” as will be found quoted in the “History of the Sabbath,” by Elder J. N. Andrews, page 351. Not long after the publication of the article above-mentioned, I received a letter from Dr. A.H. Lewis, of New Jersey, inquiring if I could verify this statement, or whether it was a historical myth, so many of which have come down to us from the early centuries. As soon as possible I commenced the investigation of this subject, taking in, also, the statement of Nicephorus, that Constantine directed that it should be so called. See “History of the Sabbath,” page 352 (third edition, 1887). OGSO 75.2

I would here call attention to two facts: (1) The quotations and references made by Elder Andrews, in his “History of the Sabbath,” are absolutely correct. The closest criticism has never been able to impeach that book in a single particular. They only have found fault with it whose knowledge did not entitle them to the position of critics. (2) The “Magdeburg Centuries” is the work of an association of learned and impartial men, thoroughly conversant with ecclesiastical history. And so, if there is any question of the correctness of the assertion concerning Sylvester, it does not fall upon the author of the “History of the Sabbath,” nor yet upon the authors of the “Magdeburg Centuries,” but upon the earlier historians from whom those authors drew their information. And again, if it should be proved that the information was not correct, that fact will not at all militate against the position of the author of the “History of the Sabbath.” To the contrary, it will rebound against those who originated the statement, in order to give the authority of the name of a highly-honored bishop, absolutely the first Pope, in favor of the title of Lord’s day being given to the first day of the week, familiarly known as the day of the sun. It would but prove that there was no authority of any nature in the first half of the fourth century for giving the Sunday the title of the Lord’s day. OGSO 75.3

Of the real history of Sylvester but little is known. This, at first thought, seems very strange, considering that he lived at a most interesting period in the history of the Catholic Church, namely, at the time when its foundation was laid; that he was bishop most of the time that Constantine was emperor; and that in the time of his bishopric the primacy of the See of Rome was established, which finally led to the complete exaltation of the “Sovereign Pontiff.” There can be no doubt that the following remarks by De Cormenin, in his “History of the Popes,” are strictly correct:- OGSO 76.1

“The actions of this pontiff remain in oblivion; and the legends transmitted by the monks, since the fifth century, are less adapted to put us in possession of the truth than to convince us that the history of a man so celebrated has been corrupted nearly up to its very source. We would not adopt the fictions of authors, who represent Sylvester as the catechist of Constantine, and pretend that this prince was cured of leprosy, and baptized by the pontiff. They add, that the emperor, in gratitude, made him a donation of the city of Rome, and ordered all the bishops of the world to be submissive to the pontifical See. They affirm that the Council of Nice assembled by the orders of Sylvester, and that he first granted the right of asylum to churches. OGSO 76.2

“Romuala and some undiscerning compilers give us all these ridiculous fables as facts of which celebrated historians have proved the falsity.”-Page57, edition 1846, Campbell, Philadelphia, from the French. OGSO 77.1

It is beyond all question that interested parties were guilty of the most shameful frauds, to give the authority of the name of Sylvester to traditions and practices which they wished to fasten upon the church. Just as soon as the full authority of emperors, councils, and bishops was acknowledged over the church, just so soon the authority of the Scriptures began to wane. And when the priests and monks were honored as the expounders of the will of Heaven; when their word was accepted by the Christians as sufficient authority, they introduced countless “pious frauds,” to impose upon the credulous people, to strengthen and confirm their own authority. This was all made to turn to the honor of the Roman pontiff; and to convince the people that such was the opinion, the decision of a celebrated Pope was enough to insure its general and unqualified acceptance. OGSO 77.2

On this account it has been a most difficult task for the critic and the historian to give reliable information to the world, it being so difficult to separate the genuine from the counterfeit. And in very many cases the genuine has been so corrupted by designing men that it remains a matter of great uncertainty what was actually said and done. This is shown in the reputed letters of “the Fathers,” which have been multiplied beyond measure, and their genuine letters have been so tampered with that they are often of little service in giving the actual opinions of their authors. What they really wrote must always remain, to a great extent, uncertain. OGSO 77.3

In this respect the memory of Sylvester has been peculiarly unfortunate. There is an abundance of tradition respecting him, so much that the truth has been almost entirely neglected, or purposely hid. Certain it is that his life was an eventful one, and his writings not numerous, or else the tradition makers have done him great injustice, to serve their fraudulent purposes. OGSO 78.1

And it should be borne in mind that these deceptions were not harmless. Nor does an exposure of their falsity in the least lessen the wrong they have done to the world and to the cause of Christianity. What matters it that they are exposed as vile frauds and forgeries? their authors and perpetuators have no further need of them. They served their purposes, and they can now be spared; but their influence is as enduring as if they were inspired and eternal truth. The words of the bishop were as the word of God to the people, to whom the real word of God was becoming unknown. The deception, the tradition, was given to establish a desired custom; and the custom in time became the warrant for its own observance as a Christian duty. In this manner professed Protestants, even to this day, suffer themselves to be imposed upon. Leaving the Scriptures of truth, they inquire what was the custom of the church in the early centuries; but they do not carefully inquire how those customs became established. If they would do this, they would find in a large proportion of cases that the customs they so willingly follow became customs by means of the vilest frauds. OGSO 78.2

In regard to what is ascribed to Sylvester in ordering that the day of the sun should be called the Lord’s day, it will be seen by the quotation from the “Magdeburg Centuries” that these authors give Metaphrastes as their authority for the statement. And as no other authority is referred to, and the statement is found nowhere else, it rests entirely on the reliability of this writer. Four times in their brief history of Sylvester, they quote, or refer to, Metaphrastes. I say, their brief history, for the whole biography of Sylvester is given in less than one actual page. The edition of Lucius, Basel, 1624, that which Elder Andrews examined in the Library of Andover Theological Seminary, is in large pages, double columns, each column being counted for a page; so that pages 739 and 740 are on the same side of the same leaf. About two-thirds of this complete page is devoted to Sylvester. OGSO 79.1

We must now turn our attention to Metaphrastes, and inquire how he stands as a historian, whether his writings are so worthy of credit that we may safely and surely depend on his assertions in such a matter as the one under consideration. In regard to this, it does not appear to be difficult to arrive at a conclusion, for the testimony concerning him is all on one side-all to the same intent. “McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia” says:- OGSO 79.2

“Very little is known of his individual history. The name Metaphrastes was given him on account of the manner in which he commented and paraphrased (åìåôåöñáóå) the materials for his biographical work. The greatest variety of opinion prevails as to the time when he lived. Blondell, Vossius, Ceillier, Baronius, Simler, Valaterra, Allatius, Cave, Oudin, Fabricus, all give different dates, varying from the ninth to the fourteenth centuries. It even appears uncertain whether there may not have existed two men of that name at different times.... The work is not original. Metaphrastes only arranged and paraphrased, in very good style for the times, various biographies which existed previously in the libraries of churches and convents. He omitted many details which he considered useless or unproved, and substituted others which he considered more important or authentic. He has been accused of having by these modifications destroyed the simplicity of the ancient biographies. His own work has undergone many alterations and additions, as well as curtailment, so that, according to Fabricus, out of 539 biographies generally ascribed to him, 122 are undoubtedly genuine.” OGSO 80.1

This certainly does not afford any assurance that we may rest with confidence upon the statements of those writings which pass under the name of Metaphrastes. But let us inquire further. Herzog, “Rel. Encyclopedia,” says:- OGSO 80.2

“This Byzantine author has established for himself a name in the literature of the middle ages, by collecting and working over older and more recent histories of martyrs and saints. But just as his collection itself is composed of the most unlikely elements, and contains that which is most spurious and fabulous, so there is attached to him and to his age a considerable darkness; he belongs to those of whom one does not like to be reminded, because they are surrounded by nothing but confusion and uncertainty.” OGSO 80.3

A work entitled, “Critical Study of Ecclesiastical History,” by John Goulter Dowling, M. A., Wadham College, Oxford (London, Rivington, 1838), speaks thus of our author:- OGSO 81.1

“In the early part of the tenth century, Simeon Metaphrastes was employed by the emperor to rewrite, in a popular and attractive manner, the lives of the saints and martyrs. He executed his commission by compiling from the ancient narratives a number of labored and ostentatious panegyrics, contemptible for their false taste, and noxious for the fabulous circumstances and superstitious opinions which he has interwoven with the original materials. His ill-employed labor inflicted on church history is a deep and lasting injury; for the compositions, which were written in accordance with the feelings and notions of the day, soon superseded the less obtrusive works, which possessed a really historic value. The greater part of the lives of the Eastern saints, which have come down to us, have, unfortunately, passed through the hands of Simeon or his imitators; and it is now too often the chief business of the ecclesiastical critic to distinguish between the evidence of the ancient biographers and the fables of the metaphrast.”-Pp. 84, 85. OGSO 81.2

It does not seem to be necessary to multiply evidences on this point. These authorities, themselves reliable, speak so decisively on the subject, that I think all will agree that we do well to require some more and better evidence than that of Metaphrastes before we accept as truth any reputed historical statement. OGSO 81.3

It will be readily conceded-that there is nothing incongruous in the idea of Sylvester ordering that Sunday should be called the Lord’s day; so that it could be accepted if there were any reliable evidence to that effect. But we may safely say there is not. It does not become us to admit that it did take place, merely because it would not be an incredible circumstance if proof thereof existed. We can only safely admit as a fact of history that of which some reliable proof can be offered. OGSO 82.1

There is another circumstance which tells against the statement. If Sylvester had, by his assumed apostolic authority, ordered that Sunday should thenceforth be called the Lord’s day, that order would have been honored by succeeding bishops, and especially by the bishops or popes of Rome, who were ever on the alert to do honor to that See. But such was not the case. Leo. I., surnamed the Great, was as assuming as need be, and he made most strenuous efforts to exalt the honor and authority of the See of Rome over all the churches. This was less than a century before Justinian subjected all the churches to Rome. If his predecessors in that chair, in the time of Constantine, had decreed that Sunday should be called the Lord’s day, it would certainly seem incredible that Leo I., in his celebrated letter, to which reference is so often made, as being the most beautiful expression of the reasons for keeping that day, should call it the day of the sun, and not the Lord’s day. In that letter he twice referred to the first day, and twice to the seventh day. The latter he called once Saturday and once the Sabbath. The former he once called the first day of the week, and once Sunday; but not at all the Lord’s day. OGSO 82.2

Rejecting the testimony of Metaphrastes as apocryphal, as that upon which we can place no reliance, and considering that the succeeding bishops failed to recognize such an order in their actions and letters, I cannot consider the assertion that Sylvester ordered that Sunday be call the Lord’s day, entitled to any credit whatever. OGSO 83.1

What about the statement of Nicephorus, that Constantine also ordered that the day of the sun should be called the Lord’s day? I am free to say that I never attached much importance to this statement, even before I had instituted any examination of the claims of Nicephorus to be considered a reliable historian. I had studied the life and character of Constantine sufficiently to cause me to doubt the correctness of the statement, let it come from whom it might. All the evidence goes to show that Constantine was never a devoted worshiper of the Lord; that he held Apollo, the sun-god, in reverence during his whole life. His edict in behalf of the venerable day of the sun was in honor of Apollo, as the highest Christian authorities testify. To the time of his death he held the office of high priest of the pagan rites. His veneration for Sunday was in regard to its dedication to the worship of the sun, and that only. There is absolutely nothing in the history of Constantine to justify the belief that the statement quoted by Nicephorus is true. OGSO 83.2

It was Nicephorus who first ascribed the words of Leo the Philosopher, in which he reversed the law of Constantine in regard to Sunday labor, to Leo I., of Thrace. These were the words that Justin Edwards gave to Pope Leo the Great. I say Nicephorus was first to make this statement, because he is the first authority for that statement of whom I have any knowledge. I have no knowledge that anyone made the statement again until several centuries after his time. This mistake in regard to the decrees of the Leos is inexcusable in Nicephorus, because he had the means at hand to verify his assertions, namely, the Code of Justinian, in which the decree of Leo I. was to be found. OGSO 83.3

In this I am taking for granted that Nicephorus did make the statement. Elliott (Horæ Apocalypticæ) quotes a Doctor Maitland who says that Nicephorus said so; but as no reference is given to book, chapter, or page, I have been unable to verify it. I examined Nicephorus by the table of contents under every word where I thought possible to find it, as Constantine, Sylvester, Dominicum, Diem, etc., but could not find it. I also examined considerable that he wrote about Constantine, but did not find the remark in question. I accept, however, the assertion that Nicephorus did say so, and proceed to inquire as to the probability of its correctness. OGSO 84.1

First, we must guard against confounding this Nicephorus with Nicephorus patriarch of Constantinople about the beginning of the ninth century. He also wrote a brief church history, embracing only the period from A. D. 602, the time of the death of Maurice, to A. D. 769. Calistus Nicephorus is supposed to have lived about the beginning of the fourteenth century, but the actual time is unknown. The “Encyclopedia Britannica” says:- OGSO 84.2

“For the first four centuries the author is largely dependent upon his predecessors, Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Evagrius, his additions showing very little critical faculty; in the later period, his labors, based on documents now no longer extant, to which he had free access, though he used them also, with small discrimination, are much more valuable.” OGSO 85.1

Inasmuch as the works to which he had access are not now extant, and he used them without discrimination, as others also testify, how are we to determine that his later writings are much more valuable? Of this we can better judge when we more fully understand his character as a writer. The above quotation says he depended upon preceding historians for the events of the first four centuries. But I think it is not difficult to show that he drew as largely from the imagination and from monkish legends as from the historians named. Certainly he did not draw the statement in question from either of these. It was derived from some other source; and what? who can tell? OGSO 85.2

The “Real Encyclopedia” of Herzog says:- OGSO 85.3

“Nicephorus has, as is well known, made no great name for himself by his church history. Good language and dextrous representation have won for him the name of an ecclesiastical Thucydides, during the time when a collection of fables and impossibilities stood just as high” (as a church history). OGSO 85.4

It goes on to say that Nicephorus spoke slightingly of his predecessors, and promised to improve on them by strict adherence to truth; but that the expectation raised by these promises was not at all met by the work itself. The work of Dowling, already referred to, “Critical Study of Ecclesiastical History,” says:- OGSO 85.5

“Though he amply partook of the superstition of the age in which he lived, and paraphrased the writers from whom he derived his information in the affected and extravagant style characteristic of the later Greeks, he has transmitted some important facts of which we should without him have remained in ignorance. He was eloquent, diligent, and inquisitive, though destitute of judgment and discrimination.”-Pp. 92, 93. OGSO 86.1

And still the query will arise, How are we to know that they are facts, seeing that no writer but himself has left them on record, and seeing that he was destitute of judgment and discrimination, and dealt largely in fables and legends? The Cyclopedia of McClintock and Strong speaks thus of him:- OGSO 86.2

“The last of the Greek Church historians, and the only one their church produced in the middle ages. He is frequently denominated the ecclesiastical Thucydides, because of the elegance of his style, and the theological Pliny, because of the superstition and credulity which are betrayed in his writings.... His work is of great interest, as it is the only contribution to church history which appeared in the East, from the sixth to the fourteenth century. It is, however, generally condemned in modern times as a compilation of fables and absurdities.” OGSO 86.3

The authors of the “Magdeburg Centuries” have shown their appreciation of Nicephorus in the following manner. Speaking of the wonderful things ascribed to Sylvester, such as the baptism of Constantine for the cure of his leprosy, for which the emperor donated to him the city of Rome with lands surrounding, they add: “We will mention nothing here of the wonderful conversion of the Jews, by means of a bullock, to be sure; the restoration to life of one killed by a Jewish sleight-of-hand performer; we wish that boasting style of narration to be sought by those who delight in it, in Nicephorus.”-P. 139. OGSO 86.4

The reader can hardly fail to be interested in the following as a specimen of history. It is from the account by Nicephorus of the baptism of Constantine, the healing of his leprosy, the donation, etc., etc., all of which is to the glory of the Roman bishop:- OGSO 87.1

“For in this very night, in the enjoyment of his rest, he received a vision, for Peter and Paul, the chief of the apostles, appeared to him and said: O Constantine, we are Peter and Paul, sent to you by the Lord God, that we exhibit to you a sign and indication of healing. They exhorted him that he should inquire for Sylvester, the head of the saints of that city, with whom is a fish-pond, in which if he should bathe, very soon all his disease should cease; and from that grace he should have children innocent and free from the corruption of that disease. OGSO 87.2

“When sleep left him he called for his physician, who for a long time had stood a long way off, and told him he had no longer need of human help, for help had come by a most high hand. Then when he came to Sylvester he told him that he wished him to consider with reverence and veneration, that the gods, under the name of Peter and Paul, had visited him. And Sylvester said, O emperor, there are not many gods, but one, and Peter and Paul are not gods, but indeed servants and apostles of God, who, because of their faith and devotion, had been in great favor, holding the first place among the saints.”-Book 7, chap. 33, p. 286, edition Basel, 1553. OGSO 87.3

He then proceeds to recount at length those things which all know to be only fables. According to this, Constantine was baptized at the time of his first knowledge of the Christian religion; whereas, it is well known that he was baptized in Nicomedia, near the very close of his life. To the chronicler of these fables and legends of the Dark Ages, we are indebted for the statement that Constantine ordered that Sunday should be called the Lord’s day. OGSO 87.4

These stories, told by Metaphrastes and Nicephorus, served an excellent purpose to give honor to the day of the sun, when the words of Sylvester and Constantine had such weight among the benighted and credulous church people. And were it possible to separate the truth from fables in the whole field of church history, who can tell how many statements, now passing for historical truth, would be shown to be fabulous and fraudulent? And yet professed Protestants, of this age of light and Bible privileges, too often leave the word of God, and find their duty in following the customs and traditions of those ages of darkness and mysticism! How necessary at this time to listen to the word of inspiration: “To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” Isaiah 8:20. OGSO 88.1

The word is a lamp to our feet, and a light to our path. Psalm 119:105. It is sufficient for our every need, for it is given that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:17. He who adds to it or takes from it, does so at the risk of eternal life. Revelation 22:18, 19. OGSO 88.2

Now in regard to this, we may conclude as we did in the case of Sylvester. Seeing that “Christian princes” were fully agreed with councils and popes to do honor to this day, we can but think that if Constantine had made an order that the title of the venerable day of the sun should be exchanged for that of the Lord’s day, his successors in the throne of the empire would have paid some respect to, or taken some notice of, that order. Some of them would. doubtless have given the day that title in their edicts. But they did not. This fact is well stated by Doctor Heylyn, thus:- OGSO 88.3

“So for the after ages, in the edicts of Constantine, Valentinian, Valens, Gratian, Honorius, Arcadius, Theodosius, Christian princes all, it hath no other name than Sunday, or dies solis; and many fair years after them, the synod held at Dingulosium, in the lower Bavaria, Anno 772, calls it plainly Sunday.”-History of the Sabbath, Part 2, chap. 2, sec. 12. OGSO 89.1

Here I leave the whole subject with the reader, believing that all who want proof for the basis of their belief, will reject as spurious both the statement of Metaphrastes and that of Nicephorus, in regard to orders by Sylvester and Constantine requiring that Sunday be called the Lord’s day. Probably no such orders were ever given by any authority in either Church or State. The practice of calling it so grew up gradually, and it was never recognized as being by any authority either divine or human. Had there ever been any recognition of such authority, there would have been more uniformity in the practice. But, for many centuries, the edicts of emperors and kings uniformly called it the day of the sun; while councils called it indifferently both Sunday and Lord’s day. The title Sunday, however, would be more correctly written Sun’s day, as this agrees with the Latin from which it is rendered. OGSO 89.2