Schwegler’s work had made it apparent from what side the Tübingen position was open to attack, and on this side Albrecht Ritschl proceeded to attack it in his well-known work on the origin of the early Catholic Church._(_20_)_ The first edition (1850) is primarily directed against Schwegler only; in the second (1857) he develops his opposition of [pg 017] principle to Baur. He offers proof that the earliest literature is not dominated by the negotiations for a compromise between the two parties which was postulated by the Tübingen School, and at the same time he attacks the basis of the whole hypothetical construction. Baur, he urges, must have formed a false conception of Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity, since, on his view, it cannot be explained what was the common element that held the two together. Had they only, as the Tübingen School was obliged to assume, had the external bond of profession of faith in Christ, it would never be possible to explain why both parties felt the need of approaching one another by mutual concessions until finally they coalesced in a single united Church. The extent of the doctrinal material common to both must, Ritschl argues, have been much greater than Baur represents. He has not discharged the first duty of a historian of the Apostolic age, for this requires “that the points should be clearly shown in which Jewish Christianity and Paulinism coincide.” Baur had only given a negative description of the Apostle’s doctrine, because he never gives any hint “that Paul in very essential points held views which were common also to Jewish Christianity.” The problem regarding the nature of the unity between Paulinism and primitive Christianity is thus recognised and formulated. But it was not so easy for Ritschl to say exactly what constituted the common element of doctrine, the existence of which he postulated. That is especially evident in the second edition of “The Origin of the Early Catholic Church.” He is then only willing to admit an “opposition of practice” between Paul and the original apostles; the area of this opposition is so restricted that “the essential agreement in the leading ideas laid down by Christ will be only the more clearly evident.” But since in Paulinism little enough is to be found of the “leading [pg 018] ideas laid down by Christ” the proof of the “essential agreement” remains a pious aspiration. The only solid fact which Ritschl is able to adduce is the expectation of the parousia. He assumes that it formed a very important part of the common doctrinal material, and inclines to believe that Paulinism and Jewish Christianity agreed in an ideal-real expectation of the Second Coming in order to make common cause against Chiliasm, though the latter in its coarser form only appeared later.