Synod, and that it was sinful to unite with Lutherans who adhered to such doctrines. (_Lutheraner_, Dec. 21, 1852.) Former members of the North Illinois Synod declared in the _Observer_ of January 20, 1860: "We do not believe in the bodily presence, baptismal regeneration, the ceremonies of the mass, and in similar nonsense." (_L. u. W._ 1860, 93.) As late as 1896 the Allegheny Synod refused to ordain a candidate because he did not hold that the Sunday was of divine institution. (_L. u. W._ 1896, 281.) 41. Sailing under False Colors.--Foremost and boldest among the Reformed theologians within the General Synod were S. S. Schmucker and B. Kurtz, who nevertheless insisted on sailing under the Lutheran flag. Brazenly claiming to be the true representatives of Lutheranism, they at the same time assailed the Lutheran and defended the Reformed doctrines with ultra Calvinistic zeal and bigotry. They opposed the adoption of all the Lutheran symbols (especially of the Formula of Concord), as well as the unqualified subscription to the Augsburg Confession, because they were imbued with the Reformed spirit and absolute strangers to, and enemies of, everything distinctive of, and essential to, true Lutheranism. (_L. u. W._ 1866, 21.) In his _Popular Theology_, published for the first time in 1834, Schmucker says: "But whilst the Reformers [Luther and Zwingli] agreed in rejecting this papal error [transubstantiation], it is much to be regretted that they could neither harmonize among themselves as to what should be substituted in its stead, nor consent to walk together in love, when they could not entirely accord in opinion.... Alas! that men, distinguished so highly for intellect, and chosen of God to accomplish so great a work, should betray such a glaring want of liberality toward each other; that, having gloriously cooperated in vanquishing the papal beast, they should turn their weapons against each other, for a point not decided in Scripture, and therefore of minor importance!" (Edition 1848, p. 297.) With respect to the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, Schmucker, in his _Popular Theology_, distinguishes between the substantial, the influential, and the symbolical presence and the bald symbolical representation. Then he continues: "After a protracted and unprofitable struggle, the Lutheran Church has long since settled down in the happy conviction that on this, as on all other subjects not clearly determined by the inspired Volume, her sons shall be left to follow the dictates of their own conscience, having none to molest them or make them afraid. In the Lutheran Church in this country each of the above views has some advocates, though the great body of our divines, if we mistake not, embraces either the second or third." (305.) Also in his _Portraiture of Lutheranism_ (1840) Schmucker maintained that the Lutheran Church no longer demands the acknowledgment of the real presence in the Eucharist, Luther himself,