The learned Morer, a clergyman of the church of England, confirms this statement of Kitto. He renders Ignatius thus:— “If therefore they who were well versed in the works of ancient days came to newness of hope, not sabbatizing, but living according to the dominical life, &c.... The Medicean copy, the best and most like that of Eusebius, leaves no scruple, because ζωὴν is expressed and determines the word dominical to the person of Christ, and not to the day of his resurrection.”[496] Sir Wm. Domville speaks on this point as follows:— “Judging therefore by the tenor of the epistle itself, the literal translation of the passage in discussion, ‘no longer observing sabbaths, but living according to the Lord’s life,’ appears to give its true and proper meaning; and if this be so, Ignatius, whom Mr. Gurney[497] puts forward as a material witness to prove the observance of the Lord’s day in the beginning of the second century, fails to prove any such fact, it appearing on a thorough examination of his testimony that he does not even mention the Lord’s day, nor in any way allude to the religious observance of it, whether by that name or by any other.”[498] It is manifest, therefore, that this famous quotation has no reference whatever to the first day of the week, and that it furnishes no evidence that that day was known in the time of Ignatius by the title of Lord’s day.[499] The evidence is now before the reader which must determine whether Mosheim or Neander spoke in accordance with the facts in the case. And thus it appears that in the New Testament, and in the uninspired writers of the period referred to, there is absolutely nothing to sustain the strong Sunday statement of Mosheim. When we come to the fourth century, we shall find a statement by him which essentially modifies what he has here said. Of the epistles ascribed to Barnabas, Pliny, and Ignatius, we have found that the first is a forgery; that the second speaks of a stated day without defining what one; and that the third, which is probably a spurious document, would say nothing relative to Sunday, if the advocates of first-day sacredness had not interpolated the word _day_ into the document! We can hardly avoid the conclusion that Mosheim spoke on this subject as a doctor of divinity, and not as a historian; and with the firmest conviction that we speak the truth, we say with Neander, “The festival of Sunday was always only a human ordinance.” CHAPTER XV. EXAMINATION OF A FAMOUS FALSEHOOD.