then, does not imply that non-fundamentals are falsely taught, or that the correctness of the Confession on fundamentals is _merely_ substantial. The questions which touch non-fundamentals, or matters apart from the substance, are _simply waived_ and left undetermined. Thus interpreted, the most devoted friend of the Confession, in all its parts, as well as he who is compelled to make a reservation as to some portions, can freely use the Formula. It was the best basis possible, under all the circumstances, and we are therefore satisfied with it." "If, when the General Synod affirmed that the _fundamentals_ were correctly taught, she had declared or implied that the non-fundamentals were incorrectly taught, no Lutheran who believed that the Augsburg Confession is sound on _all_ the doctrinal points it touches, or who believed that none but fundamental doctrines are set forth in the Confession, could have received the Formula. She satisfied herself, therefore, with an affirmative about fundamentals, making neither an affirmation nor denial in regard to non-fundamentals. She left the synods in absolute freedom in non-fundamentals, freedom to doubt, to reject, or to receive them." "So also when she declared that the fundamentals of Scripture-doctrine are taught in a manner _substantially_ correct, she neither declared nor implied that they were not taught in a manner absolutely correct, but ... as all who believe that they are set forth in a manner _absolutely correct_, believe, necessarily, that they are taught in a manner _substantially_ correct; for that which is absolute embraces that which is substantial and something more; she simply makes an affirmation, so far as two classes (if thinkers are agreed, affirming nothing and denying nothing as regards that in which they differ, but having absolute freedom to doubt, reject, or receive that which goes beyond the substance, and embraces the minutiae of the form. The man who has a quarrel with this position of the General Synod has a quarrel not against something incidental to her, but against her very life. For on this position, expressed or implied, rested, and continues to rest, the ability of our General Synod to have a being." (Spaeth, 1, 402. 399. 401. 395 f.) According to Krauth, then, there was constitutional room in the General Synod for Schmucker and Kurtz as well as for Walther and Wyneken; room for all who accept the fundamental doctrines in which evangelical Christians agree, but deny the distinctively Lutheran doctrines, and room also for men who confess all doctrines of the Lutheran Symbols. As late as October 29, 1863, Krauth declared in the _Lutheran and Missionary_ that there was nothing in the Basis of the General Synod to bar even the Missouri Synod from entering it with the whole mass of confessions in her arms. (_L. u. W._, 1863, 378.) Dr. Krauth overlooked the fact that a Lutheran who adopts the symbols _ex animo_, and does not merely carry them in his