We now come to the stirring martyr times in which the early christian church was cradled, and by means of which it was maintained in vigour, unity, and purity. If there is one thing more than another that strikes the student of ecclesiastical history, it is the fact that the great law of conscience in religious things-the obligation arising from religious belief-was utterly unknown to the Pagan world, and was developed for the first time in the lives and deaths of the early christians. "The religious obligation of truth was interpreted by them to demand suffering for the sake of it whenever the christian was challenged to answer the question, "Art thou a christian." This, neither the severe Roman, nor the philosophic Greek, could understand. The one could appreciate loyalty to the gods of the empire, and the other could calmly investigate truth; but neither could understand the sense of duty which constrained the christian to DIE for the sake of the truth which he professed. The case of Socrates may be cited in reply to this assertion, and certainly it forms the nearest approach to the martyr-spirit of the christian which the heathen world presents, But it will be found upon consideration that the cases are so far from being parallel that Socrates had no means of escape from the sentence pronounced on him, and that his calmness was largely tinctured with returning superstition. The martyrchristian might escape with a word, but nobly died rather than utter it; and, this solely from love and loyalty to him in whom he believed.

The rise and progress of christianity was an insoluble problem to the Roman government. At first the christian church was regarded as a Jewish sect, like the Pharisees, Sadducees, or Essenes, and its obscurity was its defence. Soon, however, its real nature became apparent, and the deadliest hate arose when it was found to refuse all allegiance to, or recognition of, the gods of the empire. No other religion but christi anity denounced every other religion and worship as criminal. The Roman, loyal as he was to his gods, conld yet tolerate the gods of other nations. But here was a religion with no visible deity, spurning and denying the gods which were a part of Rome herself and bound up with her national life and history! This was a crime only to be expiated with blood. The

197

christian church was also in a measure a secret society, the members of which appeared to be everywhere. The slave who served you, the soldier who fought for you, the very son, daughter, wife, husband, brother, sister who loved you, might, for aught you knew, be a christian. This unknown spread of a feared and disliked religion excited the rage of the devoted adherent of the pagan faith. The christians, again, kept aloof from the debasing public entertainments and cruel spectacles of those days. The theatre, the circus, the gladiatorial show, never saw them present, and from their habit of secluding themselves from these public places of resort, and assembling together in secret, the most horrible accusations were made and believed against them. They wor shipped an ass's head. They ate the flesh and drank the blood of martyred children. They rioted in unnatural crimes. They were atheists, too, they had no gods, no altars, no temples, no images. And so in times of public calamity-an inundation, an earthquake, or a defeat in war, the christians were accused as its cause, and christianos ad leones," the christians to the lions"-became the ready and constant cry.

Writers on church history have usually enumerated TEN distinct and separate persecutions of the early christians by the Roman Pagan Power, from the time of the Acts of Apostles to the establishment of christianity as the religion of the empire.

I. The first great persecution commenced in the year 64, in the reign of the Emperor Nero. The Apostles Peter and Paul are said to have suffered under this cruel Emperor. He was, by all accounts, one of the most brutal ruffians that ever disgraced a throne. No one has a word to say in favour of Nero. He set fire to Rome in his reckless merriment, and then charged the crime upon the christians. The nation at large was only too ready to believe any charge against them, and a furious persecution began. Tacitus, the Roman historian, tells us that Nero, to put an end to the rumour of his setting fire to Rome,"brought forward, as accused persons to be subjected to exquisite punishments, men christians, hateful for their wickedness. The author of their name, Christ, was capitally punished by the procurator, Pontius Pilate, while Tiberius was Emperor.

called

198

The detestable superstition, however, though for the present suppressed, broke out again, not merely in Jerusalem where the evil originated, but in the city itself, where all kinds of atrocious and shameful practices concentrate themselves and were enacted. Therefore, a few having been first taken who made confession, their aid brought to light a multitude who were convicted, not so much of the crime of burning the city as, of hatred of the human race.' Three things are remarkable in this extract, 1st, the exactitude with which the facts recorded in scripture are confirmed by this secular writer. 2nd, the enmity and abhorrence with which christians were regarded even by the cultivated Romans. 3rd, the admission that the separation of themselves from the heathen world, which marked the early christians, was the real cause of their being persecuted at this time, and not the belief of their having set fire to the city. An exterminating war now began, and the scenes which followed were horrible beyond description. It will be sufficient to state, that besides the ordinary cruelties of the time, some christians were smeared over with pitch and then set on fire as torches to illuminate the infernal gardens which occupied the place in Rome, where St. Peter's now stands. So deep had the hateful form of the monster Nero burnt into the imagination of the church of those days, that for years afterwards many christians believed that he was not dead, but would return again from beyond the Euphrates in the character of antichrist.

II. The second great persecution took place in the year 71, in the reign of Domitian, and lasted fifteen years. It was by this Emperor that the Apostle John was banished to the isle of Patmos. The cruelties perpetrated were not so terrible as those under Nero, and confiscation and banishment were the more frequent modes of punishment. The mere profession of christianity being a state-crime, the odious trade of informer was taken up by many, from malicious or avaricious motives, as has always been the case in such times. Two royal sufferers distinguished this period; viz., the Consul Flavius Clemens, the emperor's cousin; and his wife Flavia Domitilla; the former of whom was, as a christian, put to death on the charge of atheism, and the latter sent into exile. It was a striking proof of the living, penetrating influence of the new faith, that it took possession of the hearts of those who were so near the very seat of the persecuting power.

com

III. Nerva, who succeeded Domitian, was a mild and beneficent prince, and the church enjoyed a lull in the midst of the storm; but when the great Emperor Trajan ascended the throne in the year 98, the clouds again gathered thick and threatening. A persecution now menced which lasted nineteen years, and which was distinguished from the preceding ones by being justified on the ground of legal necessity alone, and not from any motive of blind and unreasoning hatred. The christians must die, argued this clement Prince, because the laws of Rome must not be set at defiance. All accusations against individuals must, however, be legally proved, and no anonymous charges entertained. If any renounce christianity and show their sincerity by doing homage to the gods, they are to be at once freely pardoned. But should they continue immoveable in their profession, there remains no alternative but to execute the last penalty of the law. Such is the substance of this Emperor's famous reply to the letter of Pliny, to which we have before adverted. The aged Simeon, bishop of Jerusalem, became a martyr in this reign, in the 120th year of his age. The illustrious Ignatiu, bishop of Antioch, also suffered death in the year 115, being conducted to Rome and thrown to wild beasts in the amphitheatre of the Coliseum. The circumstances of his apprehension are briefly these. Trajan, in the course of his journey to the east to make war upon the Parthians, visited Antioch, where, flushed with recent victories, and bent upon the subjection of christians to the laws of Rome, he threatened all the christians of Antioch with death unless they recanted their profession. Ignatius, to divert attention from his flock, at once appeared before the Emperor in person, and after being examined was bound in chains, and embarked for Rome. Touching at Smyrna, he was permitted to embrace Polycarp, his fellow disciple at the feet of John, but was soon hurried away in order that he might arrive at Rome in time for the great games. At length, on the 20th December, 115, at the ond of the Saturnalia, he stood within the area of the great Coliseum, a building so vast, as its ruins still testify, that it could accommodate 87,000 spectators. Here, before a circular wall of upturned faces, the christian martyr stood unmoved, and addressed the vast audience in these words: Romans, spectators of the present scene, I am not here because of any crime, nor to absolve myself from any charge of wicked

66

"WHAT Course should a member of a Baptized Church of Christ pursue when he is called in the providence of God to reside in a place where there is no Baptist Church? Can he act truly to God and his conscience, and would he be faithful to the truth if he joined a church in which the ordinance of believers' baptism is set on one side, and a commandment of man substituted in its stead ?"

The christian should every where and at all times, act truly to his conscience and to God. Only as he does so, does he give evidence of the possession of the elements of an upright and noble character. Fidelity to God and to conscience should erer be esteemed as more precious than gold, yea, than much fine gold. Those who possess this fidelity will take care not to seem to be in any relation, or to any extent what they really are not. Neither will such give their countenance and support to that which in their hearts they do not approve of, but on the contrary disapprove of, because they believe it to be contrary to the revealed will of God. By joining a church where infant sprinkling is taught and practised, the Baptist is acting a most inconsistent part, and an inconsistent part, too, in reference to the most solemn of all matters-the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ as sovereign Lawgiver in his Church. Virtually such an one hides his light under a bushel, and refuses to be an agent for the propagation of that which is right. Why, perhaps the reason that God in his inscrutable providence has placed the Baptist in another locality, is, in order that he may disseminate the truth concerning Christ's law of baptism in that locality, where no scripturally constituted church exists. And if it be so, it is, if possible, all the more imperative on him to be true to his profession.

What should we think of a Protestant joining a Roman Catholic Church if he were called upon to reside at Rome, or in a town where no Protestant places of

History of

201

worship existed? And yet such an act would be every whit as defensible as the act of a Baptist joining any of those churches in which the ordinance of baptism is altogether set on one side, and the sprinkling of babes is substituted in its stead. Mark, we are not speaking of the act of worshipping in the congregation of believers, but of uniting in fellowship with a Pædo-Baptist Church, and thus sanctioning and supporting its error. We may and ought to meet with the Lord's people when they meet to worship God; but we ought not in any way to sanction what we believe to be untrue. If I were placed in a neighborhood where I could not meet with a Baptist Church, I should worship as one of the congregation where I could hear most of pure gospel truth preached; but fidelity to conscience and to God would prevent my joining with the church, because if I did so I should be sanctioning what I believe to be a soul deluding error. I cannot look upon infant sprinkling as if it were a harmless thing; it is a deadly error, by means of which tens of thousands are being destroyed. It is the pride of man setting aside the authority of my Lord and Saviour. I must protest against it, if I desire to be faithful to Christ. How then can I unite with a church in which the positive command of Christ concerning baptism is despised, and a Dagon of man's invention is set up in its place?

There are large numbers of so-called 'Baptists" in full communion with Congregational Churches at the present time. We find them in well nigh every town and city to which we travel. These persons are recreant to the principles they profess to believe, and in most cases, the reason why they are so is because the Baptist Church is not "respectable" enough. Away with such treachery to truth, and conscience, and God. Our soul abhors it. It is hateful to the simple hearted christian who desires to worship God honestly. Glasgow. T. W. MEDHURST,

union, and that at Tunstal withdrew.Brethren Thornley, of Stowmarket, and Webb, of Ipswich, preached on the first day, and brethren Barnes, of