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