lan of the work, (General history of dogma--_loci_, and
these according to the established scheme), proves that Neander has not
succeeded in giving real expression to the historical character of the
study, and in attaining a clear insight into the progress of the
development.[38]

Kliefoth's thoughtful and instructive, "Einleitung in die
Dogmengeschichte," 1839, contains the programme for the conception of
the history of dogma characteristic of the modern confessional theology.
In this work the Hegelian view of history, not without being influenced
by Schleiermacher, is so represented as to legitimise a return to the
theology of the Fathers. In the successive great epochs of the Church
several circles of dogmas have been successively fixed, so that the
respective doctrines have each time been adequately formulated.[39]
Disturbances of the development are due to the influence of sin. Apart
from this, Kliefoth's conception is in point of form equal to that of
Baur and Strauss, in so far as they also have considered the theology
represented by themselves as the goal of the whole historical
development. The only distinction is that, according to them, the next
following stage always cancels the preceding, while according to
Kliefoth, who, moreover, has no desire to give effect to mere
traditionalism, the new knowledge is added to the old. The new edifice
of true historical knowledge, according to Kliefoth, is raised on the
ruins of Traditionalism, Scholasticism, Pietism, Rationalism and
Mysticism. Thomasius (Das Bekenntniss der evang-luth. Kirche in der
Consequenz seines Princips, 1848) has, after the example of Sartorius,
attempted to justify by history the Lutheran confessional system of
doctrine from another side, by representing it as the true mean between
Catholicism and the Reformed Spiritualism. This conception has found
much approbation in the circles of Theologians related to Thomasius, as
against the Union Theology. But Thomasius is entitled to the merit of
having produced a Manual of the history of dogma which represents in the
most worthy manner,[40] the Lutheran confessional view of the history of
dogma. The introduction, as well as the selection and arrangement of his
material, shews that Thomasius has learned much from Baur. The way in
which he distinguishes between central and peripheral dogmas is,
accordingly, not very appropriate, especially for the earliest period.
The question as to the origin of dogma a