s material theologically, and partly to
develop it. But this development, under the influence of the Hierarchy,
fell into false paths, and became partly, at least, corrupt (the age of
Scholasticism), and therefore a reformation was necessary. It was
reserved for this third period to carry back the doctrinal formation
which had become abnormal, to the old sound paths, and on the other
hand, in virtue of the regeneration of the Church which followed, to
deepen it and fashion it according to that form which it got in the
doctrinal systems of the Evangelic Church, while the remaining part
fixed its own doctrine in the decrees of Trent (period of the
Reformation)." This view of history, which, from the Christian
stand-point, will allow absolutely nothing to be said against the
doctrinal formation of the early Church, is a retrogression from the
view of Luther and the writers of the "Centuries," for these were well
aware that the corruption did not first begin in the middle ages.]

[Footnote 43: This fulfils a requirement urged by Weizsaecker (Jahrb. f.
Deutsche Theol 1866 p. 170 ff.)]

[Footnote 44: See Ritschl's Essay, "Ueber die Methode der aelteren
Dogmengeschichte" (Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1871 p. 191 ff.) in which
the advance made by Nitzsch is estimated, and at the same time, an
arrangement proposed for the treatment of the earlier history of dogma
which would group the material more clearly and more suitably than has
been done by Nitzsch. After having laid the foundation for a correct
historical estimate of the development of early Christianity in his work
"Entstehung der Alt-Katholischen Kirche", 1857, Ritschl published an
epoch-making study in the history of dogma in his "History of the
doctrine of justification and reconciliation" 2 edit. 1883. We have no
superabundance of good monographs on the history of dogma. There are few
that give such exact information regarding the Patristic period as that
of Von Engelhardt "Ueber das Christenthum Justin's", 1878, and Zahn's
work on Marcellus, 1867. Among the investigators of our age, Renan above
all has clearly recognised that there are only two main periods in the
history of dogma, and that the changes which Christianity experienced
after the establishment of the Catholic Church bear no proportion to the
changes which preceded. His words are as follows (Hist. des origin. du
Christianisme T. VII. p. 503 f.):--the division about the year 180 is
certainly placed too early