out the distinction between fundamentals and non-fundamentals; and to illustrate the use of it in practice.

The primitive churches afterwards had the same distinction all along in their eye, as might be made appear from numerous and plain testimonies k. But their ordinary conduct in admitting persons to communion, or rejecting them from it, according to that rule, is a plain and sensible argument drawn from certain fact, which supersedes all further inquiries. Unity in the fundamental articles of faith was always strictly insisted upon as one necessary condition of church membership: and if any man openly and resolutely opposed those articles, or any of them, he was rejected as a deserter of the common faith, and treated as an alien.

From hence then it may appear, that the distinction which we are now upon is ancient and well grounded: and of what moment it is may be collected from hence, that the previous question, in almost every dispute concerning church communion, depends upon it. Nor need we wonder if much pains has been taken by many to perplex and entangle it: for they who are most afraid of being condemned by the rule will declare against it, or will warp and pervert it, to make it serve their own purposes. Hence it is that we have almost as many different rules for determining fundamentals, as there are different sects or parties; and that which might otherwise serve (if all men were reasonable) to end all differences, has itself been too often made one principal bone of contention.

But though perverse disputers may at any time raise clouds and darkness, and there is no rule so clear, but a wrangler may contrive a thousand ways to perplex and entangle it; yet if the point can but be once settled upon a rational foot, the clearing it so far will suffice among the honest and reasonable part of mankind; and it is an

See many of those testimonies collected in Frid. Spanheim. tom. iii. 1059, 1306. Hoornbeeck. Socin. Confut. lib. i. cap. 9. p. 210. Turretin. p. 9.

1 See Bingham, Christian Antiquities, b. xvi. cap. 1.

end worthy of our thoughts and carem. It is morally certain that all schemes or projects for any perfect union of Christians, however well intended or wisely laid, will at length fail in the issue, (through the almost infinite variety of capacities, tempers, interests, passions, prejudices,) just as all schemes for an universal peace throughout the world (or only over all Europe) will of course fail of effect: nevertheless, we ought evermore seriously to seek after peace, whether religious or secular, and to promote the same by instruction, counsel, and endeavour, as far as possible, or reasonable, leaving the event to God. And therefore there is no reason for throwing aside any useful means of making peace, though some persons will not admit of them, and others may turn them into a matter of more strife.

As the distinction between doctrines fundamental and non-fundamental is undoubtedly just in the general, and is confessed, in a manner, by all parties to be a good previous rule for settling the terms of Christian communion, there is certainly a way of clearing it from all reasonable exceptions, however difficult it may be to come at that way. Error may run men into inextricable mazes, and commonly does so: but true and right principles, regularly and aptly pursued, will always find a clear exit. I proceed then to the business in hand.

It will be needless here to distinguish between the fundamentals of natural and revealed religion, because revealed takes in both, and both, so considered, fall into one. It will be equally needless to distinguish nicely between the several fundamentals of faith, worship, and morality, because all of them indifferently are essential to Christianity, and ought equally to be insisted upon, as terms of Christian communion. But it may be highly needful to distin

Optari id magis potest quam sperari inter Christianos ut conveniatur vel in judicio de necessariis et fundamentalibus religionis, vel ut in iis ab omnibus unanimiter stetur- -Adeo aliud est, quid hic alibique fieri debeat videre et monere; aliud, quid fieri possit, vel eventurum videatur, indicare.

guish fundamentals considered in an abstract view, as essentials of the Christian fabric or system, (in which view it is, that they are most properly called essentials and fundamentals,) and fundamentals considered in a relative view to particular persons, in which respect they are frequently called necessaries, as being ordinarily necessary to salvation. For though the fundamentals and the necessaries do really coincide, and are indeed the same thing, (equal capacities and opportunities supposed,) yet so great is the variety of capacities and opportunities in different persons, that one rule and measure of necessaries will not equally serve for all. The want of observing this very useful distinction between fundamentals as such in an abstract view, and necessaries as such in a relative view, has unhappily occasioned much confusion in our present subject: and therefore the surest and readiest way to clear it up to satisfaction will be to attend carefully to the distinction now mentioned". Fundamentals in their abstract view are of a fixed determined nature as much as Christianity itself is, and may be ascertained by plain and unalterable rules but fundamentals in their relative view to persons will always vary with the capacities and opportunities of the persons. There is no certain judgment to be made as to particular men, either with respect to their heads or their hearts: neither can we presume to determine in special how far the Divine mercies may extend towards

Bp. Stillingfleet means the same thing in the main, though he words it differently, where he distinguishes between what things are necessary to the salvation of men as such, or considered in their single or private capacities; and what things are necessary to be owned in order to salvation by Christian societies, or as the bonds and conditions of ecclesiastical communion. Whereupon he further adds: "The want of understanding this distinction of the "necessity of things has caused most of the perplexities and confusion in "this controversy of fundamentals." Stillingfleet, Rat. Account, part i. cap. 2. p. 49.

• Ad salutem quæ præcise exigantur, ita ut sine iis et explicite et huc vel eo usque agnitis, nemo a Deo salvetur vel salvari possit, ecquis determinabit? sc. minimum quod sic. Neque Dei consiliurius aliquis existit, vel Judex salutis aut damnationis ab ipso est constitutus, ut non modo doceat necessaria ad salutem creditu factuque, (quod omnium doctorum est,) sed de

idiots, or men next to idiots; toward enthusiasts, or others not far from enthusiasts; towards even sensible and learned men erring fundamentally, but under some unconquerable prejudice or disorder of mind P. In this view, there is no fixed measure of fundamentals: or to speak more properly, though fundamentals as such are fixed and established in the very nature or reason of things, yet necessaries as such are not so; neither need they be. The way then is, to abstract from persons, and to consider fundamentals under a distinct view, as referring to the fabric of Christianity. All parties almost one way or other, one time or another, do admit of the like distinction, making the terms of communion somewhat stricter than the necessary terms of salvation: that is to say, they exclude many from communion as erring fundamentally, whom notwithstanding they do not, they dare not condemn absolutely to everlasting perdition.

The reason is, because they can make no certain estimate of the infirmities or incapacities which the men may unhappily lie under, nor of the allowances which an allseeing God may please to make to them upon that score. The Romanists, who are commonly the most severe in

finiat cum quo et quanto sive vitio sive errore, aliquis non possit ad salutem admitti, vel possit.

Ad salutem quæ requirat Deus, et quæ nobis velit esse cordi, verbum ejus copiose tradit: at quid ipse velit facere, et quomodo aut quousque vel pro misericordia cum hominibus agere aut justitia, ipsi relinquendum duco. Loquor de præcisa ultimi termini in peccato vel errore ad salutem vel damnationem definitione; mihi quidem, quicquid alii aliter censeant, visum semper inscrutabile. Hoornbeeck. Exercit. Theolog. p. 713.

▸ It may be noted, that though the Scripture says absolutely, "He that be"lieveth not shall be damned," and the Athanasian and other creeds have followed the like absolute form of expression, yet from other places of Scripture, and from the nature of the thing, it is plain that such forms of expression are always to be understood with grains of allowance for invincible ignorance or unavoidable infirmity, as all the Divine laws concerning either matters of faith or matters of practice are to be understood: they bind according to what a man hath, or might have if he would; and not according to what he hath not and could not have. This exception is so just and evident, that it was sufficient for Scripture or creeds to suppose it generally, rather than to mention it for every one's common sense will readily supply it.

their censures of any men whatever, yet sometimes do make a distinction between excluding men absolutely from Christian communion, and peremptorily sentencing the same men to eternal damnation 9. The Remonstrants, who in debate, and to serve a cause, love to confound fundamentals with necessaries, or fundamentals of communion with fundamentals of salvation, are yet observed to distinguish them in practice: for they receive not Jews, Turks, Pagans, or wild sectaries professing Christianity, as friends or brethren, and yet they presume not to exclude them absolutely from all possibility of being saved. All which shows, that a distinction ought to be made between fundamentals considered in their abstract nature, as essential parts of the Christian system, and fundamentals considered in a relative view to the salvation of particular persons.

Having thus far cleared the way, by separating from the subject what belongs not to it, (but has been unwarily or insidiously brought in, to perplex and confound it,) I may now proceed to the explaining the ratio of a fundamental truth or error, and to the fixing some certain rule whereby to discover or determine what kind of doctrines or positions properly fall under such denomination.

Non esse æqualiter definitos aut definiendos terminos communionis cum ecclesia invisibili atque adeo cum Christo et gratia Dei; et terminos communionis cum ecclesia externa visibili, docet disputatio nostrorum cum pontificiis, quod excommunicati possint esse in ecclesia; et altera, de salute majorum nostrorum sub papatu. Quin et ipsi pontifici moderatiores, Græcos aliosque Orientales extra communionem ecclesiæ positos, ab omni salute non excludunt: immo ne reformatos quidem, ex sensu Cassandri, Renati Benedicti et qui illos sequuntur. Voetius, Disput. 5.

Hactenus non vidimus tales Judæos a societate Remonstrantium gehennæ adjudicatos. Idem dicendum est de Gentilibus, Mahumetistis, Samaritis, Henric-Nicolaitis, David-Joristis, Franckistis, Stephelianis, Weigelianis, Pontificiis moderatoribus, Anabaptistis, Torrentianis, &c. Aut omnes illos a Deo et cœlo necessario exclusissimos pronuntient, aut communione et fraternitate sua dignos judicent; et consequenter dilectionem illam suam ac moderationem Remonstranticam ilico exerceant, invitando et recipiendo illos in communionem suam. Voetius, ibid.