p. 1 | Constantine and the Sunday Law, Concluded

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Sep 9, 1875

Constantine and the Sunday Law, Concluded

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

CONSTANTINE.—NO. 7.

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.

(Concluded.)*

AFTER Constantine professed to embrace Christianity, he enforced the day of his tutelary god, the sun, with additional honors, as an ordinance to be observed by the church. From a carefully compiled work, we quote the following:—

“A recent English writer says of Constantine’s Sunday law that it ‘would seem to have been rather to promote heathen than Christian worship.’ And he shows how this heathen emperor became a Christian, and how this heathen statute became a Christian law. Thus he says: ‘At a later period, carried away by the current of opinion, he declared himself a convert to the church. Christianity, then, or what he was pleased to call by that name, became the law of the land, and the edict of A. D. 321, being unrevoked, was enforced as a Christian ordinance.’ Thus it is seen that a law, enacted in support of a heathen institution, after a few years came to be considered a Christian ordinance; and Constantine himself, four years after his Sunday edict, was able to control the church, as represented by the Council of Nice, so as to cause the members of the church to establish their annual festival of the passover upon Sunday.”—Andrews’ Hist. Sab., p. 349.

All history attests the truthfulness of this statement that his first Sunday law was given out of regard for the sun, or, as Dr. Schaff says, “in conformity to his worship of Apollo,” the sun-god. His obsequious bishops were but too ready to please the humor of the emperor by constituting “the venerable day of the sun,” the chief festival of the church. Eusebius—who has so often been quoted, and even with an ill-timed air of triumph by the devotees of this relic of sun worship—acknowledges its paternity in his celebrated endorsement, as follows:—

“And all things whatsoever that it was the duty to do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord’s day, as more appropriately belonging to it, because it has a precedence and is first in rank, and more honorable than the Jewish Sabbath.”

Those who have noted the temper of the dignitaries of that day, their servility to the emperor, and their bitter prejudice against the Jews, will not be astonished that they attached more honor to the day of the sun, backed as it was by the imperial decree, than to the day which was observed by the Jews, though it had been honored as Jehovah’s rest from the work of creation. It had received the divine blessing; it was hallowed or set apart for religious observance by the Lord himself; its observance had been expressly commanded by the Lord with his own voice; it was written with his own finger in the enduring tables of stone; it was declared to be honorable, and a sign or memorial of the Creator’s power; blessings had been promised to all who keep it; and curses had been pronounced against all who profane it; each and all of which were lacking for the first day.

Said Eusebius, “We have transferred.” We shall not here give the evidence, of which abundance exists, that this transfer of Sabbath duty from the seventh to the first day was, as Eusebius affirms, made by the dignitaries of the church in the fourth century. It was, on their part, only on endorsement of Constantine’s decree of 321, and the adoption of his favorite day which was devoted to the worship of his favorite god!

The complete evidence that the Sunday was never observed as a Sabbath, or a rest-day of any kind, until after Constantine’s law; that it was adopted as a church festival out of complaisance to the emperor, and as a means of more readily leading the Roman people to profess Christianity by conforming to their customs in regard to “the venerable day of the sun;” of the regard for the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, which was, up to that time, observed by Christians, and the steps taken by bishops and councils to cause a discontinuance of the observance of the seventh day; these do not properly belong to the life of Constantine, though the complete erection of the Sunday festival is traceable to his influence. But, influential as he was, it was not without a long struggle that Christians were brought to observe the first day to the exclusion of the original and divinely instituted Sabbath. The bishop of Rome put forth every effort to suppress the observance of the seventh day. And because many churches utterly refused to conform to the rules sent to them from Rome, the aid and authority of councils was invoked, and those who refused to join in this “new solar paganism” were anathematized, and straitly threatened by the dominant party, which threats the Romanists were not slow to fulfill.

But there is another legacy left to the world by Constantine which is well worthy of notice. It is the pontificate or primacy of Rome. As the union of church and State was introduced and carried into effect by Constantine, so was the primacy of Rome or the supremacy of the Roman bishop established by him. The papacy owes its origin and power to Constantine.

In conformity to his polytheistic religion, and his policy of favoring all whose influence could strengthen his authority, “he exempted the Christian clergy from municipal duty” as early as 313.—Schaff, vol. ii, p. 3. An early historian has left us a very important testimony on this subject:—

“Constantine likewise enacted a law in favor of the clergy, permitting judgment to be passed by the bishops when litigants preferred appealing to them rather than to the secular court; he enacted that their decree should be valid, and as far superior to that of other judges as if pronounced by the emperor himself; that the governor and subordinate military officers should see to the execution of these decrees; and that sentence, when passed by them, should be irreversible.”—Sozomen’s Eccl. Hist., p. 1.

Thus the clergy were not only permitted to exercise the functions of a civil magistrate, but they were given authority above that of the civil magistrates. From their decisions there was no appeal. It takes but little knowledge of the laws of courts to perceive how readily corruption would be introduced and fostered by such an arrangement. In fact, every step tended toward binding the church and the State together as really as if that had been the only object in view. The tendency to worldliness as the result of such action is thus set forth by Hallam:—

“It was among the first effects of the conversion of Constantine, to give not only a security but a legal sanction to the territorial acquisitions of the church. The edict of Milan, in 313, recognizes the actual estates of ecclesiastical corporations. Another, published in 321, grants to all the subjects of the empire the power of bequeathing their property to the church. His own liberality, and that of his successors, set an example which did not want imitators. Passing rapidly from a state of distress and persecution to the summit of prosperity, the church degenerated as rapidly from her ancient purity, and forfeited the respect of future ages in the same proportion as she received the blind veneration of her own. Covetousness, especially became almost a characteristic vice.”—Hallam, Middle Ages, p. 261.

It is a mistake, however, to place these actions as the “effects of the conversion of Constantine,” as there is no proof that he considered the Christian religion better than other religions at the time of these decrees. He was aware of the firmness and constancy of the Christians under persecution, and as a politic statesman he thought best to attach the bishops and the churches to himself, to draw their influence toward the empire rather than to increase divisions among his subjects. By uniting the Christian and pagan systems, he hoped to strengthen the empire; and to this end he used every means to give influence to the ambitious prelates, especially to the bishop of Rome. His removal to Byzantium was doubtless to glorify himself by building up a strong city to the honor of his own name, calling it Constantinople. Yet the result was so clearly favorable to the interests of the Roman bishop that some have thought the movement had this object in view. Thus Stanley speaks of it:—

“According to the fable of Sylvester, Constantine retired to Greece in order to leave Italy for the pope: ‘Per cedere al Pastor si fece Greco.’ So said the legend, and it was undoubtedly the case that by retiring to the East he left the field clear for the bishops of Rome. In the absence of the emperors from Rome, the chief Christian magistrate rose to new importance. When the barbarians broke upon Italy the pope thus became the representative of the ancient republic. It is one of the many senses in which the saying of Hobbs is true that the papacy is but the ghost of the deceased Roman Empire, sitting crowned upon the grave thereof.”—Stanley, p. 305.

Stanley calls the bishop of Rome “the chief Christian magistrate.” This truthful expression is worthy of careful consideration. He was not only a “magistrate” in the civil acceptation of that term, but “chief” among the highest magistrates in the empire.

He was not content, however, to be above all; he was too arrogant and ambitious to long permit even an approach to his dignity. In A. D. 451 the Council of Chalcedon elevated the bishop of Constantinople to be next in rank to the bishop of Rome, against which the Roman delegates protested, and appealed to the decision of the Council of Nice, A. D. 325, in favor of the Roman primacy. The imperial commissioners who heard the plea thus decided:—

“From the whole discussion, and from what has been brought forward on either side, we acknowledge that the primacy over all and the most eminent rank are to continue with the archbishop of old Rome.”—Schaff, Church Hist., vol. ii, p. 281.

This shows that the question of the primacy was settled, not by the judgment of the imperial commissioners, but by an appeal to the decision of the Council of Nice. All after action upon that subject was but a confirmation of the decision of that council. But the prophecy of Daniel had spoken of three horns or kingdoms which were to be plucked up before the Roman pontiff to prepare the way for his supremacy. The third kingdom was plucked up when the Ostrogoths were subdued by Justinian. In his letter to the Roman bishop, Justinian recognized and confirmed his primacy. It is true that Justinian did not particularly speak of the civil power, or make a grant in that behalf. Nor was it needed. The bishop was a high civil magistrate under the empire by the authority of Constantine; and it was only needed of Justinian to put down the opposers in Rome, and to continue to hold the imperial court in Constantinople, to open the way for the exercise of independent magistracy by the Roman pontiff.

And he was not slow to improve every opportunity in that direction. He soon claimed a divine warrant to govern, not only his own territory, but all the kingdoms of the world. And such was the power of popular superstition that kings imagined that they could add to the glory of their kingdoms by receiving the blessing of the “universal bishop.” Accustomed to the idea of a union of civil and ecclesiastical power, they thought to strengthen themselves by receiving the benediction of the highest ecclesiastical officer; and that which they accorded to him as a privilege he soon demanded as a right. Mighty rulers, by their complaisance to Rome, exalted the power of the bishop over themselves; and what they intended as an act of reverence to his spiritual authority, he used as a precedent to prove his right to reign over all civil governments; and he soon demanded homage of kings and emperors as the condition of their reigning unmolested in their own territories! Truly, “his look was more stout than his fellows.” The foundation was laid, and strongly laid, by Constantine. Justinian, by plucking up the third horn, gave efficiency to the decision of the Nicene Council, and opened the way before “that wicked,” whereby he was enabled to “exalt himself,” even “above all that is called God, or that is worshiped.”

We have here given what we believe to be the truth in regard to the union of church and State, and the part which Justinian took in fulfilling the prophecy of Daniel; and we think this view is abundantly sustained by history. And here we close our brief examination of the life and acts of Constantine. We have aimed in every case to give, not only the exact words, but the actual idea of the historian. Yet it often happens that he who quotes history is accused of misrepresentation by those who do not find the quotations on the designated pages in the work in their possession. The difficulty lies in the fact that there may be different editions of the same work. To prevent such misunderstanding, we append a list of the principal histories quoted, stating in all cases where it is considered necessary, when, where, and by whom issued:—

Dowling, History of Romanism, Edw. Walker, New York, 1853, enlarged edition.

Evagrius, Bagster, London, 1846.

Foxe, Acts and Monuments of the Church, Fullerton & Co., London and Edinburgh.

Gibbon, Phillips, Sampson & Co., Boston, 1854.

Guericke, Ancient Church, Shedd’s trans., Draper, Andover, 1869.

Hallam, Middle Ages, Derby & Jackson, New York, 1859.

Dr. Hase, Appleton & Co., New York, 1860, from 7th German edition.

Keightley’s Rome, Hilliard, Gray & Co., Boston, 1841.

Mosheim, Church History, Maclaine’s, Applegate & Co., Cincinnati, 1855.

Mosheim, Historical Commentaries, Murdock’s, Converse, New York, 1852.

Milman, Murdock’s, Harpers, New York, 1844.

Milner, Church History, Thos. Nelson, Edinburgh, 1837.

McClintock & Strong’s Cyclopedia.

Neander, Torrey’s trans., Crocker & Brewster, Boston, 1852.

Dr. Schaff, Church History.

Sozomen, Bagster, London, 1846.

Socrates’ Eccl. History of the Fourth Century, Bohn, London, 1853.

Stanley, of Oxford, Scribner & Co., New York, from 2d London edition.

Theodoret, Bagster, London, 1844.

Whelpley’s Compend, Richardson & Lord, Boston, 1828.

Willard’s Universal History, Barnes & Co., New York, 1851.

Waddington, Harper’s, New York, 1855.