Since the publication of Domville’s elaborate work, James Gilfillan of Scotland has written a large volume entitled, “The Sabbath,” which has been extensively circulated both in Europe and in America, and is esteemed a standard work by the American Tract Society and by first-day denominations in general. Gilfillan had read Domville as appears from his statements on pages 10, 142, 143, 616, of his volume. He was therefore acquainted with Domville’s exposure of the fraud respecting “Dominicum servasti?” But though he was acquainted with this exposure, he offers not one word in reply. On the contrary, he repeats the story with as much assurance as though it had not been proved a falsehood. But as Domville had shown up the matter from the Acta Martyrum, it was necessary for Gilfillan to trace it to some other authority, and so he assigns it to Cardinal Baronius. Here are Gilfillan’s words:—
“From the days of the apostles downwards for many years, the followers of Christ had no enemies more fierce and unrelenting than that people [the Jews], who cursed them in the synagogue, sent out emissaries into all countries to calumniate their Master and them, and were abettors wherever they could, of the martyrdom of men, such as Polycarp, of whom the world was not worthy. Among the reasons of this deadly enmity was the change of the Sabbatic day. The Romans, though they had no objection on this score, punished the Christians for the faithful observance of their day of rest, one of the testing questions put to the martyrs being, Dominicum servasti?—Have you kept the Lord’s day?—Baron. An. Eccles., A. D. 303, Num. 35, etc.”[512]
Gilfillan having reproduced this statement and assigned as his authority the annalist Baronius, more recent first-day writers take courage and repeat the story after him. Now they are all right, as they think. What if the Acta Martyrum has failed them? Domville ought to have gone to Baronius, who, in their judgment, is the true source of information in this matter. Had he done this, they say, he would have been saved from misleading his readers. But let us ascertain what evil Domville has done in this case. It all consists in the assertion of two things out of the Acta Martyrum.[513]
1. That no such question as “Dominicum servasti?” was addressed to any martyr till the early part of the fourth century, some two hundred years after the time of Pliny.
2. That the question even then did not relate to what is called the Lord’s day, but to the Lord’s supper.
Now it is a remarkable fact that Gilfillan has virtually admitted the truth of the first of these statements, for the earliest instance which he could find in Baronius is A. D. 303, as his reference plainly shows. It differs only one year from the date assigned in Ruinart’s Acta Martyrum, and relates to the very case which Domville has quoted from that work! Domville’s first and most important statement is therefore vindicated by Gilfillan himself, though he has not the frankness to say this in so many words.
Domville’s second point is that Dominicum, when used as a noun, as in the present case, signifies either a church or the Lord’s supper, but never signifies Lord’s day. He establishes the fact by incontestible evidence. Gilfillan was acquainted with all this. He could not answer Domville, and yet he was not willing to abandon the falsehood which Domville had exposed. So he turns from the Acta Martyrum in which the compiler expressly defines the word to mean precisely what Domville asserts, and brings forward the great Romish annalist, Cardinal Baronius. Now, say our first-day friends, we are to have the truth from a high authority. Gilfillan has found in Baronius an express statement that the martyrs were tested by the question, “Have you kept the Lord’s day?” No matter then as to the Acta Martyrum from which Bishop Andrews first produced this story. That, indeed, has failed us, but we have in its stead the weighty testimony of the great Baronius. To be sure he fixes this test no earlier than the fourth century, which renders it of no avail as proof that Pliny’s stated day was Sunday; but it is worth much to have Baronius bear witness that certain martyrs in the fourth century were put to death because they observed the Sunday-Lord’s day.
But these exultant thoughts are vain. I must state a grave fact in plain language: Gilfillan has deliberately falsified the testimony of Baronius! That historian records at length the martyrdom of Saturninus and his company in northern Africa in A. D. 303. It is the very story which Domville has cited from the Acta Martyrum, and Baronius repeatedly indicates that he himself copied it from that work. He gives the various questions propounded by the proconsul, and the several answers which were returned by each of the martyrs. I copy from Baronius the most important of these. They were arrested while they were celebrating the Lord’s sacrament according to custom.[514] The following is the charge on which they were arrested: They had celebrated the Collectam Dominicam against the command of the emperors.[515] The proconsul asked the first whether he had celebrated the Collectam, and he replied that he was a Christian, and had done this.[516] Another says, “I have not only been in the Collecta, but I have celebrated the Dominicum with the brethren because I am a Christian.”[517] Another says we have celebrated the Dominicum, because the Dominicum cannot be neglected.[518] Another said that the Collecta was made (or observed) at his house.[519] The proconsul questioning again one of those already examined, received this answer: “The Dominicum cannot be disregarded, the law so commands.”[520] When one was asked whether the Collecta was made (or observed) at his house, he answered, “In my house we have celebrated the Dominicum.” He added, “Without the Dominicum we cannot be,” or live.[521] To another, the proconsul said that he did not wish to know whether he was a Christian, but whether he participated in the Collecta. His reply was: “As if one could be a Christian without the Dominicum, or as if the Dominicum can be celebrated without the Christian.”[522] And he said further to the proconsul: “We have observed the Collecta most sacredly; we have always convened in the Dominicum for reading the Lord’s word.”[523] Another said: “I have been in [literally, have made] the Collecta with my brethren, I have celebrated the Dominicum.”[524] After him another proclaimed the Dominicum to be the hope and safety of the Christian, and when tortured as the others, he exclaimed, ”I have celebrated the Dominicum with a devoted heart, and with my brethren I have made the Collecta because I am a Christian.”[525] When the proconsul again asked one of these whether he had conducted the Dominicum, he replied that he had because Christ was his Saviour.[526]
I have thus given the substance of this famous examination, and have set before the reader the references therein made to the Dominicum. It is to be observed that Collecta is used as another name for Dominicum. Now does Baronius use either of these words to signify Lord’s day? It so happens that he has defined these words with direct reference to this very case no less than seven times. Now let us read these seven definitions:—