toward the Christians could have shielded them from the outbursts of popular fury. Moreover, the whole machinery for persecution was already in existence, organized by men who would certainly hardly be considered sectaries and moralists. Christianity may be said to have become a legal offence during the reign of Trajan, in consequence of instructions furnished by that emperor to Pliny the Younger, then governor of Bithynia. These instructions were, substantially, that Christians must be punished with death after due trial and conviction; but no effort must be made to find them out, and informations must be discouraged; and if the accused will offer sacrifice to the gods of the empire, he must be acquitted. The whole tenor of the instructions indicates that the rulers are endeavoring to temper and check popular zeal, instead of to persecute. Later rescripts, up to the time of Aurelius, do not add anything of importance to these instructions, and concerning those of Aurelius himself we have no information that is worthy of confidence. We must add, further, that we do not know what direct connection Aurelius may have had with the persecutions. In a great empire like that of Rome, it is quite probable that the governors of Syria and Gaul may have carried out the laws without so much as a reference to the emperor, for we must realize that these events seem far more important now than they did to the men of that time.

But Aurelius knew of the Christians, and probably despised them. The single mention of them in the eleventh book of the "Meditations" shows this: "What a soul that is which is ready if at any moment it must be separated from the body, and ready either to be extinguished, or dispersed, or continue to exist; but so that this readiness comes from a man's own judgment, and not from mere obstinacy, as with the Christians, but considerately, and with dignity, and in a way to persuade another." It is evident from this what his judgment of them was. Perhaps he may have had in mind those zealots who thrust themselves forward upon the officers. of the government, and eagerly courted the honor of martyrdom. These would naturally be taken as representatives of the whole body. He was by birth, by education, by all the associations of his life, so separated from the class among whom this faith mostly prevailed, as to make him utterly incapable of judging rightly of it, or of appreciating the influence it exerted over them. As Aurelius knew it, Christianity had come to Rome with the flood of Eastern superstitions which poured into the world's capital.

"Jam pridem Syrus in Tiberius defluxit Orontes."

Apologies from Justin and Melito were as effective as tracts by Brigham Young would be in the Capitol at Washington. Though this comparison may be offensive to us, we must realize the justice of it, or we shall fail to understand the position of Aurelius. The familiar passage from the fifteenth book of the "Annals" of Taĉitus compresses into a few words the feelings of highborn Romans with reference to the new belief: "This accursed superstition, for a moment repressed, spread again, not only over Judea, the source of this evil, but over the city also, whither all things vile and shameful find room and reception." These sectaries defied the laws which bade them do sacrifice to the gods of the empire; their meetings. were secret, notwithstanding repeated enactments against such gatherings; they were troublesome, bringing turmoil and confusion into every quarter; they were accused of the most outrageous practices; and did they not come from the East? Thus the troubles of the times, the reawakened zeal of the pagans, and imperial rescripts already existing, account for the rise of the persecutions, while contempt for the origin of the Christians, and their character as it appeared in his eyes, would check the emperor from interposing any very serious obstacles to proceedings which, if they received any attention from him, must have seemed to be justified for political

reasons.

Have we not, in the life and character we have thus hurriedly reviewed, the outlines of a most affecting tragedy? How the irony of fate is manifested in the whole series of events! A recluse is mounted upon the throne of the world; a shy student is made master of the legions and commander-in-chief of long wars with barbarous nations; here is the most scrupulous conscientiousness in the palace of the Cæsars, one of the loftiest models of human purity and unselfishness issuing from the very heart of the most sensual and self-seeking society; but, saddest of all, a seeker after God, one who bemoans the helplessness and depravity of his times, reaching out his hand to suppress the only agent capable of helping and renovating the world; the truth and goodness of Marcus Aurelius waging exterminating warfare with the higher truth and more perfect virtue for which Polycarp and Justin were content to die! J. W. STEARNS.

CHICAGO.

OES baptism, received in the spirit of believing obedience to Christ, work in its recipient any effects beyond such as are appointed as the ordinary sequents of believing obedience to any of the commands of Christ? What are those ordinary and divinely appointed sequents?

If ye love me, keep my commandments; and I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever, even the spirit of truth. . . .

If a man love me he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.'

These verses indicate, in language intelligible to Christian experience, the effect which may be expected to follow believing obedience to the commands of Christ. It is a moral and spiritual effect, demanding a moral and spiritual antecedent, which antecedent it has in a conscious and intelligent faith. It is such fruit as will necessarily spring up in the renewed heart from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which is the spirit of Christ, and whose presence within is the presence of Christ.

That baptism, administered according to the law of its divine

1 John xiv. 15-17, 23.

Ordainer, being in a somewhat special sense an act of obedience to the Lord, will be attended with such effects as these, it is presumed no reader will deny. These are the effects which the Lord assigns to obedience to his commands. They are by no means limited to obedience to this particular command. Baptism is not mentioned in the verses quoted, nor in their connection. Baptism, or whatever act of obedience to whatever command of the Lord, has the sure heritage of this great promise.

That baptism works in its recipient a spiritual effect differing in degree and in kind from this is a conception which has appeared among us, at least in a way of inquiry, and we think somewhat more. It has appeared in a modest yet very suggestive form, and a form adapted to win favorable attention in minds of decided Baptistic proclivities. Those who have brought it out have chosen the phrase "sacramental efficacy" to express that effect. They have well chosen. In fact, it seems to us they are shut up to this as the only definite term wherewith to express the effect they suggest. It is a term also which has the advantage of giving to all who would bestow thought upon it a definite point of inquiry. We know what we are seeking. We have simply this question to consider: Has baptism, rightly administered and received, a sacramental efficacy?

It has also this advantage-we are confronted with no positively new phase of Christian thought. A sacramental efficacy in baptism is an idea which appeared in theological development and discussion before the first appearance of pedobaptism, and it has ever since held a prominent place. It has ever been, and still is, held by all who believe in and practice pedobaptism with any real confidence in it as anything more than a pleasant ceremony, involving a formal recognition of the claims of a child born of Christian parents to a Christian nurture. In the belief of all ritualists, including those who claim for themselves the exclusive use of the appellation "Catholic and Apostolic," baptism, administered according to authorized ecclesiastical forms, has, as a sacrament, a regenerating effect. The Holy Spirit is held to act through and in the rite simultaneously with its due performance, regenerating its subject.

Our question, we further premise, is a practical one, demanding our attention as Baptists. It is nothing less than this-whether we shall remain in our old well-defined and well-trodden Baptistic paths, or strike out new lines of doctrine, if not of practice, under the real lead of those whose aberrations from correct Bible doctrine and practice compel us to a separate denominational existence, not forgetting, meanwhile, the teaching of history that corresponding practice never

lingers long behind accepted doctrine. We are called upon to revise and resettle our views on the question, "What is done for us in baptism?" The careful readers of our Baptist periodical literature in recent years do not need to be informed of the present challenge to this re-examination. For the sake of definite statement simply, we shall take the liberty of quoting a few paragraphs from articles recently published in divers of our denominational journals:

"Whether God does really accomplish any such benefit through it (baptism)—whether, in short, baptism is an ordinance or a sacramentis simply a question of biblical interpretation. . . . . We doubt not that some, while strenuously rejecting baptismal regeneration, will be glad to have baptism, the most prominent ordinance in the New Testament, earnestly honored as something more than a mere sign. Others, and probably the large majority, are content to think of baptism as a ceremony denoting grace already received at the hand of God, and the public dedication of the candidate to God's service. What is done in baptism is rather by the candidate toward God and fellowmen than upon him by God. Yet those on the other side may be warranted in the feeling that this is not all, perhaps not the principal thing, effected in baptism. As a matter of experience, they ask whether they have not in the holy ordinance felt conscious of a peculiar effect of grace received, a blessing which no act of obedience on their part, as such, no profession of faith made by them, ever gives. And as a question of interpretation they too have already asked, What mean these words of wonders, Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins;' 'Except ye be BORN of water and of the spirit;' 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;' being 'BAPTIZED into Jesus Christ;' being buried with him in the baptism;' and others of like import?

"If we ask of such, Do you hold that God regenerates the already believing soul in baptism? is it not preposterous to speak of regenerating one whose faith proves that he is already alive? They might refute our metaphorical objection by the metaphorical answer, that there is life before birth. More deliberately, some will say that they would prefer to avoid the use of the term ' regeneration' here, and would be better pleased to have baptism called the sacrament of the Saviour's mystic union with the believing soul. But then they have to consider that the Scripture itself calls baptism 'the bath' or 'bathing of regeneration,' which falls in well with what we read elsewhere of the nature of baptism, if understood as the rite from which the believer comes forth for the first a new man, which may lead us to inquire whether the Bible expressions, regeneration,' born again,' 'begotten of God,' do not express the full emergence of the believer into the company of the saints—i. e.,

1 "Sacramentum est visibilis forma invisibilis gratiæ in eo collato" (A sacrament is the visible form of an invisible grace conferred in it).-Hugo of St. Victor, vid. Hagenbach's Hist. of Doct., II., 77.