“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.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account