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. CHAPTER XVI. ORIGIN OF FIRST-DAY OBSERVANCE.