The Falsehood Concerning Dominicum Servasti.
By John Nevins Andrews
The fourteenth chapter of the History of the Sabbath (first edition) exposed the famous falsehood that the martyrs of the second century were tested by the question whether they had kept the Sunday Lord’s day. The particular form of expression was said to be “Dominicum servasti?” and the interpretation was given thus, “Have you kept the Lord’s day?” This is one of the most prominent and most highly esteemed first-day arguments. The Sabbath History showed that this oft-repeated story is simply a falsehood. 1. That there is no instance at all resembling this statement till we come to the fourth century. 2. That there is then only one instance in which anything like this occurs. 3. That this does not refer to the observance of any day, but to the celebration of the Lord’s supper. To show this, we give AN ANALYSIS OF CHAPTER XIV.
EXAMINATION OF A FAMOUS FALSEHOOD.
1. Were the martyrs in Pliny’s time and afterward tested by the question whether they had kept Sunday or not? Was the question, Dominicum servasti? addressed to them? 2. Argument in the affirmative quoted from Edwards. 3. Mr. Gurney traces this story to Dr. Andrews, bishop of Winchester, who claimed to have taken it from the Acta Martyrum. 4. Sir Wm. Domville testifies that no question, at all resembling this, is to be found in the Acta Martyrum till nearly two hundred years after Pliny’s time. 5. The only question in any wise similar thereto, was that addressed to Saturninus and others, A. D. 304: “Celebrate Dominicum?” or “Agere Dominicum?” occurring in their examination. 6. Sir Wm. Domville adduces high authorities to show that the word Dominicum, as here used, signifies either a place of worship or the Lord’s supper, and cannot refer to any day of the week, the first of these authorities being the compiler of the Acta Martyrum, himself. 7. Mosheim testifies that the Acta Martyrum itself, as a historical work, is, generally speaking, entitled to no sort of credit whatever. This falsehood here shown up is too valuable an argument to be lightly surrendered by those who are determined to sustain first-day sacredness at any cost. Elder Preble, when preparing his answer to the Sabbath History, had the misfortune to fall in with the work of James Gilfillan, entitled, “The Sabbath.” He was filled with admiration at this book, calling it (First-day Sabbath, p. 408) a “highly important work;” and on page 411 he calls it “the celebrated work of Gilfillan.” He found, as he shows on page 408, that Gilfillan had read Domville, and so must have seen his statements exposing the story that the martyrs were tested by the question whether they had kept Sunday. He had no fears to follow where Gilfillan should lead. He discovered that Gilfillan had reproduced this story and given as his authority, not the Acta Martyrum, but the Ecclesiastical Annals of Cardinal Baronius. Hereupon he is delighted. Now he has got the story from a source that must command respect for it. He is astonished that the author of the History of the Sabbath could pay any regard to the popish editor of the Acta Martyrum, and to the Benedictine monks who give the meaning of the word Dominicum. Yet he forgets that the story itself comes wholly from the Romanists, and that when he goes from these to Cardinal Baronius, he merely turns from one body of Romanists to another. But inasmuch as Ruinart, the editor of that edition of the Acta Martyrum which Domville consulted, was not born till after Bishop Andrews’ death, Eld. P. thinks verily Domville did not consult the same work that Bishop A. quoted. But the truth is, the Acta Martyrum was compiled by the friends of the martyrs from age to age, and Ruinart edited the most complete and valuable collection of these legends that has ever been published. Domville did, therefore, go to the most proper edition of that work, and his testimony concerning the Acta is therefore decisive. But it is time to follow Eld. P. to Gilfillan’s quotation of Baronius. He quotes from Gilfillan at some length, ending with the following statement which is all that G. says on this point:— “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.) Quoted in Eld. P.’s First-day Sabbath, p. 412.
Gilfillan here asserts the truthfulness of this story, and assigns as his authority the Annals of Baronius at the year 303. And Eld. P., who never for a moment supposes that Gilfillan would falsify, makes the following comment:— “This shows that Domville did not consult the proper authorities for correct information. If he had done so, he might have saved himself labor, and his readers from a great amount of error.” p. 412. No doubt Eld. P. supposed when he wrote these words that Baronius actually makes the statement which Gilfillan says that he makes. Yet the truth is, Gilfillan has deliberately falsified respecting Baronius. He had read Domville’s exposure of the story as quoted from the Acta Martyrum, and had seen that Domville proved that the test related not to a certain day of the week, but to “the sacred mysteries,” that is, to the Lord’s supper. Seven times does Baronius define the word Dominicum with reference to this very case, and every time precisely as it is defined in the Acta Martyrum. As Gilfillan must have known this, he is guilty in this case of inexcusable fraud. The reader will find this fully shown up in the new edition of the History of the Sabbath, pp. 249–258. If he wishes to trace this famous falsehood in behalf of Sunday to its pretended source, let him consult Baronius, and he will see that the story is an inexcusable falsehood. The Annals of Baronius are in the Boston Public Library. Eld. P. thinks that I have too poor an opinion of doctors of divinity. But he will hardly maintain that the case of Gilfillan is very well adapted to raise my estimation of this class. Domville called this story respecting the Sunday test of the martyrs a “daring misstatement of facts.” Can Eld. P. give it a better name? Eld. P. quotes Domville’s statement respecting the “distress” of the Sabbatarians, as though it bore against the observers of the seventh day. But Domville speaks expressly of those who maintain the so-called Christian Sabbath by scriptures which relate to the seventh day. This is precisely the position and work of those who sustain the modern first-day Sabbath. The “distress” belongs to them, and is in no wise shared by those who hallow the Sabbath of the Lord. J. N. A.