ORIGIN OF SUNDAY OBSERVANCE.
By John Harvey Waggoner
Now having found that the first law for Sunday rest gave it a heathen title, that the name is altogether of heathen origin, I proceed to inquire on what basis the law stood, that is, what was the nature of the edict—what the motive which actuated Constantine in giving this decree? This also can be settled to a certainty. Many interested religionists, with far more zeal than piety or regard for the precepts of Jehovah, speak of Constantine's edict as a law for the Christian observance of the Lord's day. The very title that he gave it, the origin of that title, and the known use of the title in those times, disprove their assertion. Indeed, their knowledge of the origin of the title ought to cause them to blush when they make such assertions. But our proof is explicit on the point of the motive that gave rise to the first Sunday law. We are not straitened for testimonies in regard to this; they are so numerous that I cannot give a tithe of them. And their importance on the subject under consideration cannot be overestimated. 1. The fact that Constantine gave it the title by which it was known in pagan worship, shows that it was not enforced as a Christian institution. 2. It was dated March 7, 321, and on the next day, March 8, he issued a decree for the examination of the entrails of beasts, for the determination of portents, or for ascertaining the causes of public calamities. This was a heathen custom, and showed the heathenism and superstition that swayed his mind at that time. 3. At the time when these decrees were issued, he had made no profession of Christianity. Indeed, authorities have been quite willing to place the time of his professed conversion after the time when he presided over the Council of Nice, that it might be after the commission of many of his most perfidious and criminal acts. 4. Historians freely testify that at and after the time of issuing his Sunday decree, he was a worshiper of Apollo, the sun-god, and to the close of his life, about 337, retained the title of Pontifex Maximus, or high priest of the heathen hierarchy. Milman, in the "History of Christianity," b. 3, chap. 1, says:— "It is the day of the sun which is to be observed by the general veneration; the courts were to be closed, and the noise and tumult of public business and legal litigation were no longer to violate the repose of the sacred day. But the believer in the new paganism, of which the solar worship was the characteristic, might acquiesce without scruple, in the sanctity of the first day of the week." This is well expressed. It was, indeed, a new phase of paganism; for, though the venerable day of the sun had long—very long—been venerated by them and their heathen ancestors, the idea of rest from worldly labor in its worship was entirely new. Gibbon also gives a clear testimony on the character of Constantine as a sun-worshiper. In chapter 20 of "History of the Decline and Fall of the Empire," he says:— "The devotion of Constantine was more peculiarly directed to the genius of the sun, the Apollo of Greek and Roman mythology; and he was pleased to be represented with the symbols of the god of light and poetry. . . . The altars of Apollo were crowned with the votive offerings of Constantine; and the credulous multitude were taught to believe that the emperor was permitted to behold with mortal eyes the visible majesty of their tutelary deity. . . . The sun was universally celebrated as the invincible guide and protector of Constantine." In a note on the same page is found the following:— "The panegyric of Eumenius, which was pronounced a few months before the Italian war, abounds with the most unexceptionable evidence of the pagan superstition of Constantine, and of his particular veneration of Apollo, or the sun." Keightly, "History of Rome," speaking of Constantine at and after his profession of Christianity, says:— "Constantine, however, was still a polytheist, and his principal object of worship was the sun-god, Apollo. At the same time, with the compliant spirit of polytheism, he held the God of the Christians and the Author of their faith in respect and reverence." And Dr. Schaff testifies to exactly the same thing; in his "Church History," vol. 2, pp. 14, 15, he says:— "At first Constantine, like his father, in the spirit of Neoplatonic syncretism of dying heathendom, reverenced all the gods as mysterious powers; especially Apollo, the god of the sun, to whom, in the year 308, he presented munificent gifts. Nay, so late as the year 321, he enjoined the regular consultation of the soothsayers in public misfortunes, according to ancient heathen usage; even later, he placed his new residence, Byzantium, under the protection of the god of martyrs, and the heathen goddess of fortune; and down to the end of his life he retained the title and dignity of Pontifex Maximus, or high priest of the heathen hierarchy. His coins bore on the one side the letters of the name of Christ, on the other side the figure of the sun-god, and the inscription, Sol Invictus." On this point in regard to Constantine's Christianity after he professed it, the "Religious Encyclopedia" says:— "The notion of conversion in the sense of a real acceptance of the new religion and a thorough rejection of the old, is inconsistent with the hesitating attitude in which he stood toward both. Much of this may indeed be due to motives of political expediency, but there is a good deal that cannot be so explained. Paganism must still have been an operative belief with the man who, almost down to the close of his life, retained so many pagan superstitions. He was at best only half heathen, half Christian, who could seek to combine the worship of Christ with the worship of Apollo, having the name of the one and the figure of the other impressed upon his coins, and ordaining the observance of Sunday under the name of dies solis in his celebrated decree of March, 321, though such a combination was far from uncommon in the first Christian centuries. Perhaps the most significant illustration of the ambiguity of his religious position is furnished by the fact that in the same year in which he issued his Sunday decree, he gave orders that if lightning struck the imperial palace, or any public building, the haruspices, according to ancient usage, should be consulted as to what it might signify, and a careful report of the answer should be drawn up for his use." Mosheim, in "Historical Commentaries," p. 469, on the same point says:— "How long Constantine retained these vague and undecided views of religion and religious worship, regarding the Christian religion as excellent, and salutary to the Roman State, yet not esteeming other religions, or those of inferior gods, as vain, pernicious, and odious to God, . . . it is difficult to determine. Zosimus, as is well known, reports that Constantine did not openly profess Christianity, and show himself hostile to the Romish sacred rites, until after the slaughter of his son Crispus, and his wife Fausta; which truly detestable crimes were perpetrated in the year 326." It cannot be disguised that, at the time of his issuing his Sunday decree, he was a pagan of no very high grade; and his profession of Christianity never raised him much above the average pagan. The "Encyclopedia Britannica" gives a just estimate of his character. Speaking of the title of "The Great" being conferred upon him, it says:—9"Tested by character, indeed, he stands among the lowest of all those to whom the epithet has in ancient or modern times been applied." Dr. Schaff is justly esteemed as a man of extensive learning, and whose testimony regarding facts, no one would call in question. He is a theologian, and a warm friend of Sunday-keeping. But his theological relations have not prevented his giving the facts in regard to the first Sunday law. He says:— "He enjoined the observance, or, rather, forbade the public desecration, of Sunday, not under the name of Sabbatum or dies Domini, but under its own astrological or heathen title, dies solis, familiar to all his subjects, so that the law was as applicable to the worshipers of Hercules, Apollo, or Mithras, as to the Christians." And more so, for it referred to heathen, and not at all to Christian worship. Again Dr. Schaff says:— "He enjoined the civil observance of Sunday, though not as dies Domini but as dies solis, in conformity to his worship of Apollo, and in company with an ordinance for the regular consultation of the haruspex, 321." Concerning its claim to be considered a sacred day, it is not necessary to add much to what has already been said by the writers quoted. It would be presumption in the extreme to claim that God ever conferred any blessing or sanctification directly upon it. By a system of false reasoning, they try to make out that the blessing that was conferred upon the seventh day, was transferred to the first; but of course no scripture is ever quoted to justify the claim. The authorities here given say that it was dedicated to the sun; and that dedication is its only claim to sanctity. In perfect harmony with these, is the following from the Douay Catechism:— "It is also called Sunday from the old Roman denomination, dies solis, the day of the sun, to which it was sacred." Now, as far as the first proposition is concerned, I think I have done all that I proposed: I have given such proofs, and such an abundance of them, that every candid person must admit that it is clearly proved that the name origin, authority, and sacredness of the Sunday institution are altogether and only pagan. Thus far there is not a Christian feature about it. With great confidence I approach the examination of the second question, for which the way is so well prepared. But in passing, I will say that I have carefully avoided giving the testimony of anyone who was committed in favor of Sabbath-keeping. Every author quoted was in favor of the Sunday. If ever anybody had a right to feel confident in their position, we surely have in regard to the assertion that the Sunday is, in every feature, a heathen institution. 2. Is the institution of Sunday, as a church festival, or day of Christian observance, of papal origin? In other words, did the Papacy set up the Sunday in the church as a substitute for the Sabbath of the Lord? It is easy to see where the advocates of Sunday fail to apprehend the truth on this point. Their failure no doubt lies right here: they do not appreciate the fact that almost everything that is attributed to the Catholic Church, and can be traced to no other source, is more or less veiled in obscurity as to its origin. I invite them to take up in order the institutions which are attributed to the Papacy, and show the precise or exact origin of each. For instance: Do they believe that the Popes of Rome ever exercised civil power? They must answer in the affirmative. Will they inform us when and where that power was conferred, or how they took that power? And if they cannot clearly and satisfactorily do that, will they therefore deny that the Popes ever exercised that power? or will they assert that their power must be of divine origin? A Catholic work now before me, "with the approbation of the Lord Bishop of Beverly" (Sadlier, New York), speaking of this, says:— "And now we approach a most important topic—the rise of the temporal power of the Popes. There is this which plainly marks it as the gradual, silent work of God. No one can point with precision and certainty to the precise time when it did rise. . . . It grew as the trees grow from the soil. You cannot say when the acorn first bursts its shell and the lordly oak springs forth. Tell me whence the broad river draws its waters; tell me of all the streams, all the little rivulets and fountains that feed it, and I will then tell you every source which gave rise to the temporal sovereignty of the Popes. Like everything natural, everything providential, we can only catch indications of it here and there, in the days of its infancy, for I speak of times long before Charlemagne." Very few of the dogmas called Papal can be traced to their origin. As seen above, the Catholics base their claim on this fact, that you cannot mark their origin; that, being believed or practiced so early, they must have been derived from the apostles. This is exactly the popular argument for Sunday. But Archbishop Whately drew an argument against them from this very fact; inasmuch as the Scriptures thoroughly furnish the man of God to all good works, if these dogmas were of divine institution we could easily trace them to their divine origin—to the word of God. It matters not a whit how many or who kept Sunday, or how near to the time of the apostles it was kept. Did God command it? do the Scriptures thoroughly furnish us with proofs for its observance? Lacking this, it lacks everything that is required to make it a Christian ordinance. I do not make these remarks because they apply to the Sunday; I do not admit that it stands with the other Papal institutions, veiled in even comparative obscurity. In this respect it has a prominence all its own—it can be traced to the Papal power without the least shadow cast upon the evidence. I am confident that I can point out the two springs which, more than all others, gave rise to the baleful stream of temporal church power. But I have called attention to the obscurity of the origin of Papal dogmas, solely to show that the advocates of Sunday are inconsistent and unreasonable in their claim; they ask for the Sunday what they cannot begin to give for other institutions which they freely admit are of Papal origin. Fortunately, we can meet their most unreasonable demand with full and sufficient proof, as I shall now show. The reader will bear witness that the origin of the Sunday as a day of rest from labor, has been clearly shown: it is only pagan. We have now to consider its authority as a church institution. I shall show that the Papacy took it up from the hands of the emperors, and strictly enforced its observance, and took most effective steps to suppress and utterly abolish the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath. Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea, was the first to speak of the transfer of the honors and duties of the Sabbath to Sunday. Let the reader carefully note this important fact. His words are as follows:— "And all things whatsoever that it was duty to do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord's day, as more appropriately belonging to it, because it has the precedence and is first in rank, and more honorable than the Jewish Sabbath." I cannot give the room for all the notice that this first Sunday-sabbath testimony deserves. The Lord, in his own institution, doubtless knew best to which day the duties were most appropriate, and which day was most honorable. See Isa. 58:13. In this transaction the pronoun "we" cuts a great figure—much greater than it will be able to maintain in the day when God shall bring every work into judgment on the authority of his commandments. Eccl. 12:13, 14; Rom. 2:12, 16. Eusebius did not intend to disparage the transfer of Sabbath obligation; he was the obsequious flatterer of Constantine, and fully coincided with his decree in favor of the venerable day of the sun; and he never failed to speak in a manner to tickle the vanity of his royal patron. He spoke the exact truth in regard to the transfer. That the church took it up and united with the emperors in enforcing its observance, Dr. Heylyn, a historian of undisputed veracity and of unbounded research, testifies thus:— "And as the day of rest from labors, and restraint from business upon that day, it received its greatest strength from the supreme magistrate as long as he retained that power which to him belongs; as after from the canons and decrees of councils, the decretals of Popes and orders of particular prelates, when the sole managing of ecclesiastical affairs was committed to them." J. H. W. (To be continued.)