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:—