mind would rather have been tempted to mourn over the depravity of human nature, that it fhould be capable of fuch wickedness. Providence, however, often fets a difmal mark upon fuch men in this life. Peregrinus lived long enough to be proved a complete impoftor, and to be rendered intolerable to Chriftians; he acted the philofopher afterwards, it feems, a long time: for what is often called philofophy is confiftent enough with much hypocrify; and His dreadful end fhould be awfully inftructive to mankind.

Yet, what is there in all this account of the Christians, difcoloured as it is by the malignant author, which does not tell to their honour? While Peregrinus made a creditable profeffion, they received and rejoiced in him: they did not pretend to infallibility. His fuperior parts and artifice enabled him a long time to deceive. It is probable that he avoided as much as poffible the fociety of the moft fagacious and penetrating among the Chriftians. The followers of Jefus had learnt to fpare their neighbours' "motes, and and to feel their own beams." They were moft folicitoufly guarded against that fpecies of deception which is the moft fatal, namely, the delufion of a man's own heart. If many of them were hence too much exposed to the foares of designing men, the thing tells furely to their honour, rather than to their difgrace. As for the reft; their liberality, their zeal, their compaffion, their brotherly love, their fortitude, their heavenly-mindednefs, are confeffed in all this narrative to have been exceeding great. I rejoice to hear from the mouth of an enemy fuch a teftimony to the character of Chriftians: it is one of the best which I can meet with in the fecond century: Amidst fuch

fuch a dearth of materials it was not to be omitted. In morals Chriftians muft then have been, at leaft, much fuperior to the reft of mankind; and it is only to be lamented, that he who could relate this ftory, had not the wisdom to make a profitable ufe of it for himself.

CHAP.

CHA P. VIII.

SOME ACCOUNT OF CHRISTIAN AUTHORS WHO FLOURISHED IN THIS CENTURY.

IT

T may throw additional light on the history of Chriftian doctrine and manners in this century,' to give a brief view of Chriftian authors. Some of the most renowned have been already spoken to, and a few more of great refpectability must be deferred to the next century, because they outlived this.

Dionyfius, bishop of Corinth, lived under the reign of Marcus Antoninus and his fon Commodus. He wrote many epiftles to various churches, which demonftrate his care and vigilance in fupport of Chriftianity; a pleafing proof that Corinth was fingularly favoured by being poffeffed of a zealous and charitable paftor; though of his labours there, and of the ftate of the numerous fociety of Chriftians under his miniftry, we have no account. He wrote to the Lacedæmonians an inftruction concerning the doctrine of the Gospel, and an exhortation to peace and unity. He wrote to the Athenians alfo; and, by his teftimony, he confirms the account before given of their declenfion after the martyrdom of Publius; and of their revival under the care of Quadratus; and he here informs us that Dionyfius the Areopagite was the firft bishop of Athens. In his letter to the Chriftians in Crete he highly commends Philip the bishop, and guards them against herefies. In his epiftle to the churches of

Pontus,

Pontus, he directs that all penitents fhould be received who return to the Church, whatever their past crimes have been, even, if guilty of herefy itself. One may hence infer, that difcipline was as yet administered with much ftrictnefs in the churches; and that purity of doctrine, as well as of life and manners, were looked on as of high importance, infomuch that fome were inclined to a degree of rigour incompatible with the Golpel, which promifes full and free forgiveness through Chrift to every returning finner, without limitations or exceptions. Such inferences concerning the manners and fpirit of the Chriftians at that time feem obvious and natural: The prefent ftate of churchdifcipline among all denominations of Chriftians in England would undoubtedly fuggeft very different reflections. He writes allo to Pinytus, bishop of the Gnoffians in Crete, advifing him not to impofe on the Chriftians the heavy burden of the obligation to preferve their virginity, but to have refpect to the weakness incident to moft of them. It feemed worth while to mention this also as a proof that monaftic aufterities were beginning to appear in the Church; and that the best men, after the example of the Apoftles, laboured to control them. Pinytus in his reply extols Dionyfius, and exhorts him to afford his people more folid nourishment, left, being always fed with milk, they fhould remain in a ftate of infancy, This answer fpeaks fomething of the depth of thought and knowledge in godlinefs, with which Pinytus was endowed.

In his letter to the Romans, directed to Soter their bishop, he recommends to them to continue a charitable cuftom, which, from their first plantation, they had always practifed; namely,-to fend relief to divers Churches throughout the world,

and

and to affift particularly those who were condemned to the mines; -a ftrong proof both that the Roman church continued opulent and numerous, and also that they ftill partook much of the spirit of Chrift*.

Theophilus of Antioch is a perfon of whom it were to be wifhed that we had a larger account. He was brought up a Gentile, was educated in all the knowledge then reputable in the world, and was doubtlefs a man of confiderable parts and learning. His converfion to Chriftianity feems to have been the most reasonable thing imaginable. The Holy Spirit in his operations ever appears to adapt himself much to different tempers. Theophilus was a reasoner; and the grace of God, while it convinced him of his own inability to clear up his doubts, effectually enlightened his understanding. The belief of a refurrection appears to have been a mighty impediment to his reception of the Gofpel: It contradicted his philofophy.-The notions of proud philofophers vary in different ages; but they feldom fail in fome form or other, to withstand the religion of Jefus.

Of his labours in his bifhopric of Antioch we have no account. He carried on a correfpondence with a learned man named Autolycus; but with what fuccefs we are not told. He appears also to have been very vigilant against fashionable herefies. He lived thirteen years in his bifhopric; and died in peace about the fecond or third year of Commodus †.

Melito, bishop of Sardis, from the very little of his remains that are extant, may be conceived to be one whom God might make ufe of for the revival of godliness in that drooping church. The

Eufeb. B. 4 C. 23.

+ Eufeb. B. 4. C. 23, and Cave's Life of Theophilus..

very