operations ever appears to adapt himself much to the different tempers of the subjects of them. Theophilus was a reasoner, and the grace of God, while it convinced him of his inability to work himself out of his doubts, effectually instructed his understanding. The belief of a resurrection seems to have been a mighty impediment to his reception of the gospel. What is called philosophy varies in different ages. Such an objection to christianity would scarce now be made; but philosophy ever fails not, in some form or other, to withstand the religion of Jesus.

Of his labours in his bishopric of Antioch we have no account. He carried on a correspondence with a learned man Autolycus, with what success in the end we are not told. He appears also to have been very vigilant against fashionable heresies. He sat thirteen years in his bishopric, and died in peace about the second 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 use of for the revival of godliness in that drooping church. The very titles of some of his works excite our regret for the loss of them. One of them is on the submission of the senses to faith; another on the soul, the body, and the spirit; another on God incarnate. A fragment of his, preserved by the author of the Chronicle, called the Alexandrian, says, that the christians do not adore insensible stones, but that they worship one God alone, who is before all things and in all things, and Jesus Christ who is God before all ages. He lived under the reign of Marcus Antoninus. His unsuccessful but masterly Apology presented to that emperor, was before taken notice of. He travelled into the east on purpose to collect authentic ecclesiastical information, and gives us a catalogue of the sacred books of the Old Testament. He died and was buried at Sardis; a man whom Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, his contemporary, calls an eunuch, that is,

* Euseb. b. 4. ch. 23. and Cave's Life of Theophilus.

one who made himself an eunuch for the kingdom of heaven's sake.* Several such, I apprehend, were in the primitive times. But the depravity of human nature is ever pushing men into extremes on the right hand and on the left. There soon arose some who made a self-righteous use of these instances of self-denial, and clogged them with unwarrantable excesses. The contrary extreme is now so prevalent, that for a man to follow the example of Melito on the same generous principles which our Saviour expresses, would be thought very extraordinary, and even ridiculous. But whatever has the sanction of Holy Writ should be observed to the honour of those who practise it, whether agreeable to the taste of the age we live in or not, unless we mean to set up the eighteenth century as a pope to judge the foregoing seventeen. The same Polycrates observes of him, that his actions were regulated by the motions of the Holy Ghost, and that he lies interred at Sardis, where he expects the judgment and resurrection.

Bardasanes of Mesopotamia, a man renowned for learning and eloquence, escaped not the pollution of the fantastic heresy of Valentinian. His talents and his love of refinement were probably his snare; but, as he afterwards condemned the fabulous dreams by which he had been infatuated, and is allowed to be sound in the main, some relics of his former heresy might remain without materially injuring either his faith or his practice. I know no particular reason for mentioning him at all, but for the sake of introducing a remarkable passage from him, preserved by Eusebius, † which shews at once the great progress and deep energy of christianity.

"In Parthia," says he, "polygamy is allowed and practised, but the christians of Parthia practise it not. In Persia the same may be said with respect to incest. In Bactria and in Gaul the rights of matrimony are

* Matthew xix. Euseb. b. 4. ch. 22. Dupin and Cave. Euseb. Precep. Evang. Jortin's Remarks IV.

defiled with impunity. The christians there act not thus. In truth, wherever they reside, they triumph in their practice over the worst of laws and the worst of This eulogium is not more strong than just; and the influence of God, in supporting his own truth and his own religion, appeared by such fruits as no other religion or philosophy could ever shew.

customs.

Miltiades was usefully engaged in discriminating the genuine influences of the Holy Spirit from the fictitious, of which unhappy instances had then appeared. False prophets evinced the most stupid ignorance in the beginning, in the end a distempered imagination and furious frenzy. Miltiades shewed that the influence of the Holy Spirit, described in scripture, was sober, consistent, reasonable, of a quite different cast and genius. There is no new thing under the sun; impostures and delusions exist at this day, and why should it not be thought as reasonable now to discriminate genuine from fictitious or diabolical influences, by laying down the true marks and evidences of each, instead of scornfully treating all alike as enthusiastic? The extraordinary and miraculous influences come chiefly under Miltiades' inspection; they were at that time very common in the christian church; and delusive pretences, particularly those of Montanus and his followers, were common also. The discerning reader will know how to apply these things to our own times.

Apollinarius of Hierapolis wrote several books under the reign of Marcus Antoninus. We have at present only their titles. One of them was a Defence of Christianity, dedicated to the emperor. The work of which we know the most, from a fragment preserved in Eusebius, is that against the montanists, which will fall under our observation in the next chapter.

Athenagoras, towards the latter end of this century, wrote an Apology for the Christian Religion. His testimony to the doctrine of the trinity, contained in it, expresses something besides a speculative belief of it. It seems to have appeared to him of essential consequence in practical godliness. He is a writer not

mentioned by Eusebius. Du Pin does him injustice, by observing that he recommends the worship of angels. I have not access to his Apology, but shall give a remarkable quotation from Dr. Waterland, to whom I am obliged for the only valuable information I have of this author.* Speaking of christians, he describes them as men that made small account of the present life, but were intent only upon contemplating God, and knowing his word, who is from him, what union the Son has with the Father, what communion the Father has with the Son, what the Spirit is, and what the union and distinction are of such so united, the Spirit, the Son and the Father.

If this is true (and Athenagoras may well be credited for the fact) it is not to be wondered at, that the primitive christians were so anxiously tenacious of the doctrine. It was the climate in which alone christian fruit could grow. Their speculations were not merely ab stracted. They found in the view of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, something of energy to raise them from earth to heaven. This could be nothing else than the peculiar truths of the gospel, which are so closely interwoven with the doctrine of the trinity. The right use of the doctrine is briefly, but strongly intimated in the passage, and the connexion between christian principles and practice appears. In truth, a Trinitarian speculatist may be as worldly-minded as any other. His doctrine, however, contains that which alone can make a man otherwise.

Epiphanius Heres. 54. 1. See Dr. Waterland's Importance of the Doctrine of the Trinity.

CHAPTER IX.

The Heresies and Controversies of this Century review. ed, and an Idea of the State and Progress of Christianity during the Course of it.

IT is surely not worth while to enter minutely into the heresies which appeared in this century. Besides that my plan calls me not to notice them at all, any further than they may throw some light on the work of God's Holy Spirit and the progress of godliness, in the times in which they appeared. For they could never deserve to be made objects of capital attention on their own account. Yet it was necessary to examine and confute them. Irenæus did charitably in so doing. It is, however, to be regretted, that in his celebrated work against heresies, he should be obliged to employ so much time on scenes of so much nonsense. Let it be remarked in general, that the same opposition to the deity of Christ, or his manhood, and the same insidious methods of depreciating or abusing the doctrines of grace, continued in the second century, which had begun in the first, with this difference, that they were now multiplied, varied, complicated, and refined by endless subtilties and fancies, in which the poverty of taste and genius, so common in a period when letters are declining, appears no less than the corruption of christian doctrine. Like spots in the sun, however, they vanished and disappeared from time to time, though revived again in different forms and circumstances. Not one of the heresiarchs of this century was able to create a strong and permanent interest, and it is no little proof of the continued goodness and grace of God to his church, that they still kept themselves separate and distinct, and preserved the purity of discipline.

It has often been said, that many have been enlisted among heretics, who were real christians. When I see