distinguished Fathers failed in exegesis, and how often they were betrayed into fantastic thoughts and empty declamation. Another learned Arminian, Adrian von Cattenberg,c in his supplement to Limborch's Theology, has collected many historical elucidations of doctrines; which however, seem rather derived from other compilations than from the original sources. Finally, Hermann Venema,d has interspersed in his Ecclesiastical His tory, frequent remarks on the state and vicissitudes of opinion, which evince erudition and freedom of thought, though his prolix work is lacking in taste and good arrange

ment.

In Great Britain, the contests between Episcopalians and Presbyterians have led to elaborate investigations respecting the ancient church; and from these, dogmatic history derived some advantages. The famous archbishop Usher, did not indeed compose a general dogmatic history,e but he investigated several parts of it. f The Scotch bishop, John Forbes of Corse,g is the only Reformed writer, that has attempted to compose a general dogmatic history. Such an undertaking, Forbes has the merit of accomplishing, with learning and diligence; yet on the assumed principle, that the opinions of the Reformed churches were in perfect accordance with

b In his biographical writings in the Bibliotheque universelle; and in the Epistolae Criticae, annexed to his Ars Critica, 1712.

c Spicilegium Theologiae Philippi a Limborch. Amstel. 1726. Fol.

d Institutiones Historiæ Eccles. Vet. et N. Test. 1777-83. 7tomi 4to.

e We often see quoted: Jac. Usserii Historia Dogmatum; as if it were a general work. But the true title is: Historia Dogmatica Controversiae de Scripturis, et Sacris vernaculis. Lond. 1690. 4to.

f Here belong, the work just mentioned; and the investigations concerningthe Pelagians, in his Antiqq. Ecclesiar. Britanicar. 1639. 4to-Historia Gotteschalci. 1631. 4to.-An answer to a challenge made by a Jesuit. &c.

Christian antiquity. Various particular doctrines have been treated of, by John Cosin,h John Pearson,¿ Peter Allixj a Frenchman naturalized in England, Peter King,k George Bull, Daniel Whitby,m Samuel Clarke,n William Wall,o Nathaniel Lardner.p and others. The more recent work of the famous dissenter Joseph Priestly,q entitled a History of the Corrup tions of Christianity,-from the name of the author, has excited more attention, than its shallow contents and its glaring ignorance of the sources of historic knowledge would justify.

The anti-Trinitarians may be allowed a place here, since they have prosecuted dogmatic history according to their own creed, for which they claim historical evidence. To this class belong David Zwicker,r Christopher Sand,s

g Institutiones historico-theologiae, de Doctrina Christiana, 1745, and constituting the second volume of his Works. 1703. 2tomi, Fol.

h Historia Transubstantionis, Lond. 1675.

Lond. 1659. Fol. i Exposition of the Apostles' Creed.

j In a series of historical works, on the Trinity. [See a list of them in Rees' Cycl.]

k The History of the Apostles Creed. Lond. 1702. 8vo.

7 Opera, ed. J. Ern. Grabe, Lond. 1703. Fol. [on the doctrine of the Trinity.]

m Disquisitiones modestæ in Bulli Defensionem fidei Nicaenae. 1724.Tractatus de Imputatione peccati Adami, 1711.-Dissert. de S. Scripturarum interpretatione, secundum Patrum Commentarios. 1714.

n The scripture doctrine of the Trinity. Lond. 1712. 8vo.

o History of infant Baptism. Lond.

Souverain,t Samuel Crell, and William Whiston ; though they did not all hold the same opinions. The work of Joseph Priestly, already mentioned, likewise belongs here.

However great the labour bestowed on dogmatic history since the reformation-however rich the collections of materials-and however critically certain doctrines may have been illustrated; yet all these labours and efforts are of the less value, because they were undertaken for controversial purposes.Dogmatic history was viewed as an armory, from which every one expected to derive weapons for defending his own church, and for assaulting all others. Hence it was, that only those doctrines received much attention, which were in controversy at the time, either between Catholics and Protestants, or between both and the anti-Trinitarians, or between the different sects of Protestants. Another misfortune was, that the partialities of the investigators and compilers led them to represent the Fathers as harmonizing precisely with their own opinions; and sometimes-perhaps unconsciously--to put artificial or forced constructions upon the writings of the ancients. As all parties, Catholics, Protestants, and anti-Trinitarians, pursued such a course; it is not strange, that they arrived at very different results.

These earlier works in dogmatic history were likewise imperfect, because many documents essentially affecting several doctrines, were unknown to the writers, having been gradually brought to light in

s Nucleus Historiae Ecclesiasticæ. 1676. 4to.-Appendix. 1678.

t Le Platonisme devoile, ou Essai touchant le Verbe Platonicien. 1700. 8vo.

u Lucae Mellier (Sam. Crell) Fides primorum Christianorum, (against Bp. Bull's defence,) 1697. 8vo.

Primitive Christianity revived. Lond. 1711-12. 5vol. 8vo.

modern times; and because historic criticism was then imperfect, so that spurious writings were sometimes taken for genuine; and finally, because the excellence of a work on dogmatic history, was supposed to consist rather in the accumulation of testimonies from ancient authors, than in a lucid and correct exposition of the progress of opinion.

The honour of leading the way to a freer and more independent method of composing dogmatic histories, and thus of making an epoch in this species of writing, belongs to John Solomon Semler. At an earlier period, indeed, Godfrey Arnold, had combatted the common prejudice, even among Protestants, of excessive reverence for the ancient Christian church and its articles of faith: and Isaac Beausobre,y had published a rich treasury of new and valuable remarks on the history of the ancient doctrines and heresies. John Lawrence von Mosheim,z who first wrote church history with good taste, was equally a benefactor to dogmatic history, by his numerous and valuable illustrations of it. But Semler it was, who first broke through many prepossessions that had hitherto marred the works on dogmatic history, and who fully disclosed the undeniable fact, that the faith of Christians suffered various changes even in the first centuries,

w Unpartheyische Kirchen, und Keted. Schafhausen, 1740--42. 3 vol. Fol. zer historie, 1699--1700. 2 vol. Fol.---best

X Histoire critique de Manichee et du Manicheisme, 1734--39. 2 vol. 4 to.--a work which embraces much more than the title expresses.

y Institutionum Historiae Eccles. Libri IV. Helmst. 1755. 4to. [translated into Eng. by Maclaine, and often reprint

ed.] Still more: in Commentarii de Re

bus Christianorum ante Constantinum. Helmst. 1753. 4to. [also translated into English.]---and in: Dissertationes ad Historiam Ecclesiasticam pertinentes. Alton 1743. 2 vol. 8 vo.

that it was shaped differently in different countries, and gradually, and for the most part from external and accidental causes, obtained a more definite and established form. His familiar acquaintance with the sources of history, enabled him to bring together stores of materials, and his clear, critical discernment led him to many new views and remarks; which however, he seldom took time fully to examine, and never, to arrange and state in a lucid manner. If his censures of the ancient Fathers, are sometimes too strong, his criticism of the genuineness of ancient writings, too distrustful,—or if his too frequent repetition of certain favourite notions, and the negligence of his style, make him tedious; yet these imperfections are balanced by the fulness of his reading, his learned elucidations of ecclesiastical philology, and his free and uncontroulled judg

he could not free himself from somewhat narrow theological views, was a pattern of cautious and thorough investigation. John Matthias Schroeckk,e in his copious church history, describes the state and revolutions of opinion with special care, and with that partiality which is so great an excellence of his work. G. L. Lessing, f by his very deep penetration, would probably have surpassed all the writers of doctrinal history, had he left us something more than his fragments and hints on the subject.

C. F. Roessler g followed suc cesfully Semler's course. Though he did not complete his compilations and investigations respecting the state and progress of ancient theology, yet his works every where display philological and historical learning, united with accuracy and impartiality. As Roessler collected and prepared materials for early dogmatic history, so G. J. Planckh