# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_December 1863_S354
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

354 Some Remarks on a New Apology of the Reformed Church.

away from it. In saying this she does not display a special "reverence for God's Word," but rather that, as far as the evangelical freedom taught therein is concerned, it is for her still a completely sealed book. To this also belongs her constant appeal to the outward form of the apostolic Church. Mr. K., it is true, points to the loud warnings which the history of the Christian Church is supposed to give regarding church ornamentation. But the good man does not consider that it is not church ornamentation that corrupts the doctrine of the Church, but rather that the false doctrine which has crept into the Church corrupts church ornamentation and produces its misuse. Carlstadt and Zwingli had the images, statues, and the like — misused for idolatry — destroyed by rough hands, and they rejoiced over this as over a radical overthrow of the idolatry that had prevailed; but they did not consider that a wooden or stone idol is nothing, and so they let the true idols, which are enthroned in the heart, stand undisturbed. Luther, on the other hand, left the images in their place but freed the hearts from them, and so the idolatrous misuse ceased of itself; the images which truly served only the purpose of idolatry disappeared, and those which could serve for adornment, for propriety, and for godly remembrance remained.*) If Mr. K. now prefers to belong to a church which has not only done away with indifferent things because they are subject to misuse, but even makes them sin, then we can only pity him as a man who has not yet recognized the freedom of believers in Christ; but as for ourselves, this cannot spoil our joy in our dear, truly evangelical Lutheran Church and in her lovely church ornamentation, but rather moves us all the more to heartfelt thanks toward God's mercy, which has opened our eyes to both. —

Mr. K. continues in his panegyric as follows:

"We are Reformed because our Church has been especially privileged by God the Lord to become the confessing and martyr church — indeed, when we look to Great Britain, North America, and Switzerland, even the mission church."

*) When the Heidelberg Catechism, in answer to the question "May not images, as the books of the laity, be tolerated in the churches?" answers: "No; for we are not to be wiser than God, who wills to have His Christendom instructed not by mute idols but by the living preaching of His Word" — this answer is as crafty in its form as it is silly in its content. It is crafty in that it seeks to create the appearance that those who tolerate images wanted them to take, for the laity, the place of the Bible, and as though all images must necessarily be idol-images. But it is a silly claim that whoever believes that images too can serve for teaching and remembrance wants to be wiser than God. Or does not God teach Christians through the whole of creation, with its countless delightful images set before our eyes — especially now that the book of nature has been opened to us through the Word of God? — Thank God that the Reformed gentlemen must leave the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament; otherwise what havoc would their zeal against idol-images wreak, since whole peoples have worshiped those heavenly lights!