Domville states other facts of interest bearing on this point, and then pays his respects to Mr. Gurney as follows:—
"It thus appearing that the reference made by Bishop Audrews to the 'Acts of Martyrs' completely fails to establish his dictum respecting the question alleged to have been put to the martyrs, and it also appearing that there existed strong and obvious reasons for not placing implicit reliance upon that dictum, what are we to think of Mr. Gurney's regard for truth, when we find he does not scruple to tell his readers that the 'stated day' mentioned in Pliny's letter as that on which the Christians held their religious assemblies, was 'clearly the first day of the week,' is proved by the very question which it was customary for the Roman persecutors to address to the martyrs, Dominicum servasti? 'Hast thou kept the Lord's day?' For this unqualified assertion, prefixed as it is by the word 'clearly,' in order to make it the more impressive, Mr. Gurney is without any excuse."
The justice of Domville's language cannot be questioned when he characterizes this favorite first-day argument as—
"One of those daring misstatements of facts so frequent in theological writings, and which, from the confident tone so generally assumed by the writers on such occasions, are usually received without examination, and allowed, in consequence, to pass current for truth."
The investigation to which this statement has been subjected, shows, 1. That no such question as, Hast thou kept the Lord's day? is upon record as proposed to the martyrs in the time of Pliny. 2. That no such question was asked to any martyr prior to the commencement of the fourth century. 3. That a single instance of martyrdom in which any question of the kind was asked, is all that can be claimed. 4. That in this one case, which is all that has even the slightest appearance of sustaining the story under examination, a correct translation of the original Latin shows that the question had no relation whatever to the observance of Sunday! All this has been upon the assumption that the Acta Martyrum, in which this story is found, is an authentic work. Let Mosheim testify relative to the character of this work for veracity:—
"As to those accounts which have come down to us under the title of Acta Martyrum, or, the Acts of the Martyrs, their authority is certainly for the most part of a very questionable nature; indeed, speaking generally, it might be coming nearer to the truth, perhaps, were we to say that they are entitled to no sort of credit whatever."—Historical Commentaries, cent, 1, sect. xxxii.
Such being the authority of the work from which this story is taken, it is not strange that first-day historians should leave the repetition of it to theologians.
Such are the facts respecting this extraordinary falsehood. They constitute so complete an exposure of this famous historical argument for Sunday as to consign it to the just contempt of all honest men. But this is too valuable an argument to be lightly surrendered, and moreover it is as truthful as are certain other of the historical arguments for Sunday. If this be given because of its dishonesty, others will have to go with it for possessing the same character.
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 downward 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 Sabbatical 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."—The Sabbath, by James Gilfillan p. vii.93
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.
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. J. N. A.