SYLVESTER, CONSTANTINE, AND THE LORD'S DAY.
By John Harvey Waggoner
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 paper. 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 myth, so many of which have come down to us, historical myths, 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). 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 it 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. 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:— "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. "Romuala, and some undiscerning compilers, give us all these ridiculous fables as facts, of which celebrated historians have proved the falsity."—Page 57, edition 1846, Campbell, Philadelphia, from the French. 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. 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. 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 uneventful one, and his writings not numerous, or else the tradition makers have done him great injustice, to serve their fraudulent purposes. 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. In regard to what is ascribed to Sylvester ordering153that 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. 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:— "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 (μεταφρασις) 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, Fabricius, 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 Fabricius, out of 539 biographies generally ascribed to him, 122 are undoubtedly genuine." 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, "Real Encyclopedia," says:— "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." 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:— "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 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. 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. 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. 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 predecessor 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, in 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. 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 called the Lord's day, entitled to any credit whatever. J. H. W.