Chapter XV: Examination of a Famous Falsehood

Were the martyrs in Pliny’s time and afterward tested by the
question whether they had kept Sunday or not?—Argument in the
affirmative quoted from Edwards—Its origin—No facts to sustain
such an argument prior to the fourth century—A single instance
at the opening of that century all that can be claimed in
support of the assertion—Sunday not even alluded to in that
instance—Testimony of Mosheim relative to the work in which
this is found.

Certain doctors of divinity have made a special effort to show that the “stated day” of Pliny’s epistle is the first day of the week. For this purpose they adduce a fabulous narrative which the more reliable historians of the church have not deemed worthy of record. The argument is this: That in Pliny’s time and afterward, that is, from the close of the first century and onward, whenever the Christians were brought before their persecutors for examination, they were asked whether they had kept the Lord’s day, this term being used to designate the first day of the week. And hence two facts are asserted to be established: 1. That when Pliny says that the Christians who were examined by him were accustomed to meet on a stated day, that day was undoubtedly the first day of the week. 2. That the observance of the first day of the week was the grand test by which Christians were known to their heathen persecutors. 3. That Lord’s day was the name by which the first day of the week was known in the time of Pliny, a few years after the death of John. To prove these points, Dr. Edwards makes the following statement:—

“Hence the fact that their persecutors, when they wished to
know whether men were Christians, were accustomed to put to
them this question, viz., ‘_Dominicum servasti?_’—‘Hast thou
kept the Lord’s day?’ If they had they were Christians. This
was the badge of their Christianity, in distinction from Jews
and pagans. And if they said they had, and would not recant,
they must be put to death. And what, when they continued
steadfast, was their answer? ‘_Christianus sum; intermittere
non possum_;’—‘I am a Christian; I cannot omit it.’ It is
a badge of my religion, and the man who assumes it must of
course keep the Lord’s day, because it is the will of his Lord;
and should he abandon it, he would be an apostate from his
religion.”[500]

Mr. Gurney, an English first-day writer of some note, uses the same argument and for the same purpose.[501] The importance attached to this statement, and the prominence given to it by the advocates of first-day sacredness, render it proper that its merits should be examined. Dr. Edwards gives no authority for his statement; but Mr. Gurney traces the story to Dr. Andrews, bishop of Winchester, who claimed to have taken it from the _Acta Martyrum_, an ancient collection of the acts of the martyrs. It was in the early part of the seventeenth century that Bishop Andrews first brought this forward in his speech in the court of Star Chamber, against Thraske, who was accused before that arbitrary tribunal of maintaining the heretical opinion that Christians are bound to keep the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord. The story was first produced, therefore, for the purpose of confounding an observer of the Sabbath when on trial by his enemies for keeping that day. Sir Wm. Domville, an able anti-Sabbatarian writer, thus traces out the matter:—

“The bishop, as we have seen, refers to the _Acta_ of the
martyrs as justifying his assertion respecting the question,
_Dominicum servasti?_ but he does not cite a single instance
from them in which that question was put. We are left therefore
to hunt out the instances for ourselves, wherever, if anywhere,
they are to be found. The most complete collection of the
memoirs and legends still extant, relative to the lives and
sufferings of the Christian martyrs, is that by Ruinart,
entitled, ‘_Acta primorum Martyrum sincera et selecta_.’ I have
carefully consulted that work, and I take upon myself to affirm
that among the questions there stated to have been put to the
martyrs in and before the time of Pliny, and for nearly two
hundred years afterwards, the question, _Dominicum servasti?_
does not once occur; nor any equivalent question.”[502]

This shows at once that no proof can be obtained from this quarter, either that the “stated day” of Pliny was the first day of the week, or that the martyrs of the early church were tested by the question whether they had observed it or not. It also shows the statement to be false that the martyrs of Pliny’s time called Sunday the Lord’s day and kept it as such. After quoting all the questions put to martyrs in and before Pliny’s time, and thus proving that no such question as is alleged, was put to them, Domville says:—

“This much may suffice to show that _Dominicum servasti?_
was no question in Pliny’s time, as Mr. Gurney intends us to
believe it was. I have, however, still other proof of Mr.
Gurney’s unfair dealing with the subject, but I defer stating
it for the present, that I may proceed in the inquiry, What may
have been the authority on which Bishop Andrews relied when
stating that _Dominicum servasti?_ was ever a usual question
put by the heathen persecutors? I shall with this view pass
over the martyrdoms which intervened between Pliny’s time and
the fourth century, as they contain nothing to the purpose,
and shall come at once to that martyrdom the narrative of
which was, I have no doubt, the source from which Bishop
Andrews derived his question, _Dominicum servasti?_ ‘Hold you
the Lord’s day?’ This martyrdom happened A. D. 304.[503] The
sufferers were Saturninus and his four sons, and several other
persons. They were taken to Carthage, and brought before the
proconsul Amulinus. In the account given of their examinations
by him, the phrases, ‘CELEBRARE _Dominicum_,’ and ‘AGERE
_Dominicum_,’ frequently occur, but in no instance is the verb
‘_servare_’ used in reference to _Dominicum_. I mention this
chiefly to show that when Bishop Andrews, alluding, as no doubt
he does, to the narrative of this martyrdom, says the question
was, _Dominicum servasti?_ it is very clear he had not his
author at hand, and that in trusting to his memory, he coined a
phrase of his own.”[504]

Domville quotes at length the conversation between the proconsul and the martyrs, which is quite similar in most respects to Gurney’s and Edward’s quotation from Andrews. He then adds:—

“The narrative of the martyrdom of Saturninus being the only
one which has the appearance of supporting the assertion of
Bishop Andrews that, ‘Hold you the Lord’s day?’ was the usual
question to the martyrs, what if I should prove that even this
narrative affords no support to that assertion? yet nothing
is more easy than this proof; for Bishop Andrews has quite
mistaken the meaning of the word _Dominicum_ in translating it
‘the Lord’s day.’ It had no such meaning. It was a barbarous
word in use among some of the ecclesiastical writers in, and
subsequent to, the fourth century, to express sometimes a
church, and at other times the Lord’s supper, but NEVER the
Lord’s day.[505] My authorities on this point are—

“1. Ruinart, who, upon the word _Dominicum_, in the narrative
of the martyrdom of Saturninus, has a note, in which he says it
is a word signifying the Lord’s supper[506] (‘_Dominicum vero
desinat sacra mysteria_’), and he quotes Tertullian and Cyprian
in support of this interpretation.

“2. The editors of the Benedictine edition of St. Augustine’s
works. They state that the word _Dominicum_ has the two
meanings of a church and the Lord’s supper. For the former they
quote among other authorities, a canon of the council of Neo
Cesarea. For the latter meaning they quote Cyprian, and refer
also to St. Augustine’s account of his conference with the
Donatists, in which allusion is made to the narrative of the
martyrdom of Saturninus.[507]

“3. Gesner, who, in his Latin Thesaurus published in 1749,
gives both meanings to the word _Dominicum_. For that of the
Lord’s supper he quotes Cyprian; for that of a church he quotes
Cyprian and also Hillary.”[508]

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 Andrews
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.”[509]

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.”[510]

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.”[511]

Such is 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. It will not do to give up this argument because of its dishonesty; for 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 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:—

When Baronius records the first question addressed to these martyrs, he there defines these words as follows: “By the words _Collectam_, _Collectionem_, and _Dominicum_, the author always understands the sacrifice of the Mass.”[527] After recording the words of that martyr who said that the law commanded the observance of the _Dominicum_, Baronius defines his statement thus: “Evidently the Christian law concerning the _Dominicum_, no doubt about celebrating the sacrifice.”[528] Baronius, by the Romish words sacrifice and Mass refers to the celebration of the Lord’s supper by these martyrs. At the conclusion of the examination, he again defines the celebration of the _Dominicum_. He says: “It has been shown above in relating these things that the Christians were moved, even in the time of severe persecution, to celebrate the _Dominicum_. Evidently, as we have declared elsewhere in many places, it was a sacrifice without bloodshed, and of divine appointment.”[529] He presently defines _Dominicum_ again, saying, “Though it is a fact that the same expression was employed at times with reference to the _temple_ of God, yet since all the churches upon the earth have united in this matter, and from other things related above, it has been sufficiently shown concerning the celebration of the _Dominicum_, _that only the sacrifice of the Mass can be understood_.”[530] Observe this last statement. He says though the word has been employed to designate the temple of the Lord, yet in the things here related it can _only_ signify the sacrifice of the Mass. These testimonies are exceedingly explicit. But Baronius has not yet finished. In the index to Tome 3, he explains these words again with direct reference to this very martyrdom. Thus under _Collecta_ is this statement: “The _Collecta_, the _Dominicum_, the Mass, the same [A. D.] 303, xxxix.”[531] Under _Missa_: “The Mass is the same as the _Collecta_, or _Dominicum_ [A. D.], 303, xxxix.”[532] Under _Dominicum_: “To celebrate the _Dominicum_ is the same as to conduct the Mass [A. D.], 303, xxxix.; xlix.; li.”[533]

It is not possible to mistake the meaning of Baronius. He says that _Dominicum_ signifies the Mass! The celebration of the supper by these martyrs was doubtless very different from the pompous ceremony which the church of Rome now observes under the name of Mass. But it was the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, concerning which they were tested, and for observing which they were put to a cruel death. The word _Dominicum_ signifies “the sacred mysteries,” as Ruinart defines it; and Baronius, in _seven_ times affirming _this_ definition, though acknowledging that it has sometimes been used to signify temple of God, plainly declares that in this record, it can have _no other meaning_ than that service which the Romanists call the sacrifice of the Mass. Gilfillan had read all this, yet he dares to quote Baronius as saying that these martyrs were tested by the question, “Have you kept Lord’s day?” He could not but know that he was writing a direct falsehood; but he thought the honor of God, and the advancement of the cause of truth, demanded this act at his hands.

Before Gilfillan wrote his work, Domville had called attention to the fact that the sentence, “_Dominicum servasti?_” does not occur in the _Acta Martyrum_, a different verb being used every time. But this is the popular form of this question, and must not be given up. So Gilfillan declares that Baronius uses it in his record of the martyrdoms in A. D. 303. But we have cited the different forms of question recorded by Baronius, and find them to be precisely the same with those of the _Acta Martyrum_. “_Dominicum servasti?_” does not occur in that historian, and Gilfillan, in stating that it does, is guilty of untruth. This, however, is comparatively unimportant. But for asserting that Baronius speaks of Lord’s day under the name of _Dominicum_, Gilfillan stands convicted of inexcusable falsehood in matters of serious importance.