their own theological principles. The history of our Church in America
must be studied with this fact in mind, otherwise many of its
developments will not be understood.

It would lead too far to explain the historical and philosophical
differences between these two forms of Protestantism. A phrase first
used by Julius Stahl aptly describes the difference. The Lutheran
Reformation was the "Conservative Reformation." Its general principle
was to maintain the historical continuity of the Church, rejecting only
that which was contrary to the word of God. The irenic character of the
Augsburg Confession was owing to this principle. The Reformed Churches,
on the other hand, made a _tabula rasa_ of history, and, ignoring even
the legitimate contributions of the Christian centuries, professed to
return to apostolical simplicity, and to accept for their church-life
only that which was explicitly prescribed by the Holy Scriptures.

Thus the Lutherans retained the churches as they were, with their altars
and their pictures, the Liturgy and other products of art and of
history, provided they were not contrary to the word of God. The
Reformed, on the other hand, would have none of these things because
they were not prescribed in the Bible. They worshipped in churches with
bare walls, and dispensed with organs and music, in the interest of a
return to Scriptural simplicity.

There were other differences, but these indicate the general character
of the two movements.

History thus placed our Church between two fires, and the training she
received explains in part the polemical character for which she has been
distinguished. Sharp theological distinctions had to be made. The