FULLER, THOMAS: English theologian and church historian; b. at Aldwincle (3 m. n.e. of Thrapston), Northamptonshire, June, 1608; d. in London Aug. 16, 1661. He was educated at Queen's College, Cambridge (B.A., 1625; M.A., 1628), afterward entering Sidney Sussex College as a fellow commoner. In 1630 he was ordained and appointed to the living of St. Benet's, Cambridge. The next year he published his first book, in the fantastic poetical style of the period, .David's Hainous Sinne, Heartie Repentance, Heatie Punishment, and obtained the prebend of Netherbury in Salisbury Cathedral. From 1634 to 1641 he held the rectory of Broadwindsor in Dorsetshire, but did not wholly break off his connection with Cambridge. His first important book, the History of the Holy Warre, i.e., the Crusades, appeared in 1639. A year later he was elected proctor in convocation, and presently removed to London, where his wit in the pulpit was widely celebrated; ultimately he became lecturer at the Savoy Chapel. In 1642 he published his most characteristic work, The Holy State and the Profane State. His loyalty caused him to be driven out of London and to take
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
refuge at Oxford. He was chaplain for a time to Princess Henrietta, and then placed himself under the protection of Lord Montagu of Boughton, living quietly and supporting himself by his pen. During these years he brought out his picturesque geography of Palestine, called A Pisgah‑Sight (1650) and his most celebrated work,‑ the huge Church History of Britain. (1656), which, like all his books, abounds in quaint humor and epigrammatic sayings. Its accuracy was impugned by Heylyn, and Fuller retorted in a lively Appeal of Injured Innocence (1659), his last publication of importance. At the Restoration he recovered his ecclesiastical offices, and was looking forward to a bishopric when he was attacked by typhoid fever and died. His famous History of the Worthies of England appeared posthumously (1662). Fuller was never held preeminent as a divine, and as a historian he was too rapid and careless to inspire confidence, but he holds an important place among the prose‑writers of the seventeenth century, and his quaint humor has given him an undying popularity. Besides the works already named, his Good Thoughts in Bad Times (1645) and Thoughts in Worse Times (1647), and Mixt Contemplations in Better Times (1660) may be mentioned. He also contributed lives to Abel Redivivus, a collection, of biographies of ° moderne divines " (London, 1651).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A very full list of Fuller's works is given at the end of the sketch in DNB, xx. 315‑320. The Church History, History of University o,' Cambridge, and History of Waltham Abbey were edited by James Nichols, London, 1868, and for the Oxford University Press by J. S. Brewer, 1845. The Worthies of England was reprinted London, 1840. The original authority on the life is the anonymous biography printed in Brewer's ed. of the Church History. The best life is by J. E. Bailey, Life of Thomas Fuller, with Notices of his Books, his Kinsmen and his Friends, London, 1874. Consult also M. Fuller, Thomas Fuller, his Life, Times and Writings, 2 vols., ib. 1886.
FULLONIUS, GULIELMUS (Gulielmus Gnapheus, Willem van de Voldersgraft,WillemdeVolder): Protestant theologian; b. at The Hague, Holland, 1493; d. at Norden (75 m. n.w. of Bremen), Hanover, 1568. He received a humanistic education and became at an early age teacher in his native city, but had to flee after various persecutions on account of his faith. From 1535 to 1541 he was rector of the gymnasium in Elbing, then went to Kdnigsberg as counselor of Duke Albert and was active there from 1544 to 1547 as rector of the academy. Expelled also from there he went to East Frisia, where he died. On his theological conflicts see BBIEBsMANN, JOHANN; STAPHYLUs, FRIDERICITS.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Studied en Biidrapen op't gebied der historiechs Theologie verzameld door . . . J. G. de Hoop‑Scheffer, Amsterdam, 1868; P. Tschackert, Urkundenbuch zur Reformataonepeschichle des Herzopthums Preussen, i. 254 sqq., LeiPsic, 1890; ADB, ix. 278‑280.
FULTON, JOHN: Protestant Episcopalian; b. in Glasgow, Scotland, Apr. 2, 1834; d. in Philadelphia Apr. 24, 1907. He studied in Aberdeen, and at the age of sixteen left Scotland for the United States. In 1857 he was ordained priest in New Orleans and after serving as rector and journalist Was appointed in 1892 professor of canon law in the Divinity School of the Protestant Episcopal
Church in Philadelphia. He wrote Letters an Christian Unity (New York, 1868); Index Canonum (1872); Laius of Marriage (1883); The Beautiful Land: Palestine, Historical, Geographical, and Pictorial (3891); The Chalcedonian Decree: or, Historical Christianity Misrepresented by Modern Theology Confirmed by Modern Science, and Untouched by Modern Criticism (Slocum lectures; 1892); and Memoirs of Frederic A. P. Barnard (1896). He also edited Ten Epochs of Church History (New York, 1897‑99).
FUNCg, JOHANN:Lutheran divine; b. at Wdhrd (a suburb of Nuremberg), Germany, Feb. 7, 1518; beheaded at K6nigsberg Oct. 28, 1566. After obtaining the master's degree at Wittenberg, and after preaching in several places, he was recommended to Duke Albert of Prussia by Veit Dietrich, and accordingly went to K6nigsberg in 1547, where the duke was so pleased with the young clergyman that he made him his court preacher (1549). On the outbreak of the Osiandrian controversy, Funck sided with Osiander and his son‑in‑law Andreas Aurifaber (q.v.), physician in ordinary to the duke; when Osiander died (Oct. 17, 1552), Funck delivered the eulogy. Joachim Morlin (q.v.), his principal opponent, was obliged to leave Prussia in 1553, and Funck was then considered the dominant theological representative of Osiander's teaching. Duke John Albert of Mecklenburg, the Lutheran son‑in‑law of Duke Albert of Prussia, long tried to influence his father‑in‑law against his protfe, and Funek was obliged to retract certain " heresies " at a synod held at Riesenburg in 1556 and to promise to abide by the Augsburg Confession and the Loci of Melanchthon. The duke still showed him great favor, however, but after his marriage to Osiander's daughter, the widow of Aurifaber, who died Dec. 12, 1559, the wrath of Osiander's opponents now turned upon Funek, who was both the confessor and counselor of the duke and treasurer of the duchess. The dissension was increased by alien adventurers like Paul Skalich, who took advantage of the senile duke, while councilors belonging to the highest nobility were pushed aside. The estates, feeling that their rights were infringed, appealed to the suzerain of the country, King Sigismund II. of Poland, who sent a commission in Aug., 1566, to Kbnigsberg to investigate the matter. Funek, together with the councilors Horst, Schell, and Steinbach, was charged with opposition to the ecclesiastical and political governance of the state, and the Polish commission directed that the case be tried by the court in the Kneiphof, Konigsberg, thus putting the accused at the mercy of their enemies. While it was true that Funek's position rendered him partly liable for the measures of the duke, Albert gave the final decision and was, therefore, personally responsible. Little value can be attached to the confession extorted from the prisoner by threats of torture, and there is, therefore, no tangible evidence of guilt. Nevertheless, Funck, Horst, and Schnell were condemned and executed in the Kneiphof market‑place at Kdnigsberg; Steinbach had to leave the country; and Paul Skalich, the real cause of the mischief, had the good fortune to escape.
411 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA Fuller
The works of Funck are as follows: Chronologia ab
urbe condita (2 vols., Ktinigsberg, 1545‑52); exposi
tions of Psalms xlvi. (1548), ciii. (1549), and ix.
(1551); Auszug and kurzer Bericht von der Ge
rechtigkeit der Christen fur Gott (1552); Wahrhaftiger
and grundlicher Berieht wie and was Gestalt die
drgerliche Spaltung van der Gerechtigkeit des Glaubens
sich anfdinglich im Lande Preussen erhoben (1553);
Der Patriarehen Lehre and Glauben (1554); Vier
Predigten von der Reekdfertigung des Sunders durch
den Glauben fur Gott. Item: Kurtze Bekenntnis
(1563). PAUL TBCHACHERT.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: K. A. Hase, Herzog AlbrecUvon Preussen
uxd rein Hofprediger, Leipsie, 1789 (really a biography of
Funck); P. Techaekert, Urkundenbuch zur Reformataona
geachichte des Herzogthums Preussen, i. iii., Leipsic, 1890
(contains essays on Funek's life up to 1551); idem, Un
gedruckte Briefs zur allgemeinen Refomeationageschichte,
Christian faith, it promotes the union of the various parts of the Christian Church and develops a spirit
of tolerance with regard to the articles I. Funds‑ of lesser importance in which they dismental and agree. The Roman Catholic Church non‑Funds‑ rejects the distinction (cf. KL, arti‑
mental cle "Dogma," iii. 1879‑86) on the
Doctrines. ground that it resolves doctrines
into essential or necessary, and unessential or incidental. Nevertheless the Church recognizes a distinction in the relative importance of its doctrines. Thomas Aquinas and the Council of Trent distinguish concerning the relative value of the sacraments, baptism and the Eucharist (the " crown of the sacraments ") being the " major sacraments." Although the distinction is not universally made by Protestant theologians, it early calve into use. N. Hunnius was the first to use it in the Lutheran Church in his De fundamentali dissensu doctrinae Lutheranm et Calviniana, (Wittenberg, 1626). He was followed by Quenstddt and others, and more recently by F. A. Philippi (Glaubenslehre, i. 73 sqq., Gutersloh, 1854), who, starting from the atonement as the constitutive principle, defines as fundamental all articles which necessarily follow from it.
The distinction was urged by the younger Turretin (d. 1737), and in England by Chillingworth (d. 1644), Stillingfteet (d. 1699), Waterland (d. 1740), and others in the interest of ecclesiastical toleration; before this, Francis Bacon, in his Advancement of Learning, had insisted upon distinguishing between " points fundamental " and " points of further perfection." The Parliament of 1653 voted indulgence to all who professed the " Fundamentals," and appointed a commission, consisting of Archbishop Ussher (who resigned, his place being filled by Baxter), Owen, Goodwin, and others, to define what the " Fundamentals " were. Baxter was for holding to the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, and the Ten Commandments. But the commission drew up sixteen articles which were presented to Parliament, and only missed ratification by its dissolution in 1653 (cf. Neal's History of the Puritans, ii., 143‑144, New York, 1863). The varying importance of the doctrines of the Christian system and the growing tolerance of later times have produced the conviction that it is desirable to emphasize the more important articles. The Evangelical Alliance, on the assumption that agreement in fundamentals is a sufficient foundation for Catholic communion, has adopted a constitution of nine articles, which are regarded as essentials of Christian union (see EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE).
The distinction of fundamentals and non‑fundamentals is based upon the valid assumption that some articles are of greater importance than others.
It is justified by the example of a. The Fun‑ Paul in his teaching against the Ju‑
damental daizing tendencies of his time. The
Doctrines following distinctions may be heip‑
Defined ful in defining the term: Funda‑
Negatively. mental when applied to articles does
not imply that they are the only articles which it is expedient or desirable for a Church to teach, and the individual to believe.
Pondamental Doctrines Funsten
THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG
The apostasy of the angels, the eternal duration of future punishment, the single or double procession of the Holy Spirit (the filioque clause being rejected by the Greek Church; see FImOQUE CoNTRovER$Y), may all be Scriptural doctrines, and ought to be believed, but are not fundamental doctrines of Christianity (although some would so consider the endlessness of future punishment).
The fundamental doctrines of Christianity are not to be confused with the distinctive tenets of a denomination. Denominational differences may and often do embody the truth; but the mode of baptism, for example, or the particular theory of the decrees (however valuable a right view on this subject may be as a constructive principle in dogmatic theology), or a special form of ecclesiastical polity, can not be regarded as fundamental. Christianity might not do so well with one class of opinions on these subjects (say, baptism by sprinkling, supralapsarianism, and the congregational principle of church government) as it would with another; but it would still remain radically unchanged, and continue to exert its beneficent influence.
The fundamental doctrines of Christianity . are not synonymous with the doctrines essential to salvation. The latter depend upon the answer of the individual to two questions‑" What think ye of Christ?" and " What must I do to be saved?" A living faith in Christ as the one sent of God for the salvation of the world is essential to salvation, and sufficient for it (John vi. 47; Acts xvi. 31). The fundamental doctrines of Christianity are broader in their scope. They concern it as an objective system of truth.
The term fundamental is not properly applied to doctrines which distinguish Christianity from natural religion. There is a distinction between the fundamentals of religion and the fundamentals of Christianity. Religion is possible on the basis of the Five Articles of Lord Herbert of Cherbury; but the superstructure of the Christian religion has a different foundation. Some of the tenets which Christianity has in common with natural religion, as the existence of God, are fundamental to the former.
The Apostles' Creed, though a venerable and excellent summary of the Christian's faith, is not a perfect statement of the fundamental articles of Christianity. On the one hand, it brings out only by implication the doctrine of atonement, passes over entirely the Scriptures, and, on the other, as Waterland puts it, is " peccant in excess."
The fundamental doctrines of Christianity, then, are those which lie at the basis of the Christian system, and without which its professed aim (the glory of God and the highest welfare of man) could not, by logical necessity and with subjective certainty, be evolved. Waterland's defi‑
3. The Fun‑ nition is as follows: " Fundamental, as
damental applied to Christianity, means some‑
Doctrines thing so necessary to its being, or at
Defined least its well‑being, that it could not
Positively. subsist, or maintain itself tolerably,
without it" (vol. v., p. 74). And
again: " Whatever verities are found to be plainly
covenant are fundamental " (p. 103). According to Sherlock (p. 256), they are doctrines " which are of the essence of Christianity, and without which the whole building and superstructure must fall."
The most fundamental doctrine of Christianity is salvation by Christ; and the principle will hold good that whatever doctrine stands in most necessary connection therewith is the most fundamental. The statement in Rom. i. 1‑6 (the divine existence, Scriptures, incarnation, grace, faith, and resurrection) approaches nearest of any passage in Scripture to a comprehensive enumeration of the fundamental doctrines. Waterland enumerated seven, as follows: (1) The Creator, or Covenanter; (2) covenant; (3) charter of the covenant, or Sacred Writ; (4) mediator; (5) repentance and a holy life; (6) sacraments; (7) two future states. The central principle from which he started was the Christian covenant. The sacraments, however, can hardly be regarded as a fundamental. The following statement is preferable: (1) The Fatherhood of God; (2) the Trinity; (3) the incarnation; (4) atonement; (5) faith or union with Christ, the condition of man's best being; (6) the immortality of the soul; (7) the Scriptures the summary of the divine purposes concerning man.
In defining what is fundamental in Christianity, it is as desirable to avoid a narrow as to avoid a latitudinarian tendency. Certain communions insist upon regarding episcopacy and the authority of the Church as fundamental. Individuals might insist upon particular views of original sin, tho divine decrees, the inspiration of the Scriptures, or the duration and nature of future punishment. But few of these are touched upon in the Apostles' Creed, and none definitely answered. Divergence of view on these points is of inconsiderable importance in comparison with the cardinal doctrines of God's existence, the Messiah's work, saving faith, the soul's immortality, and the sufficiency of Scripture for human illumination and guidance, and can not limit the perpetuity of Christianity. It is, however, not to be forgotten that a Church may profess these fundamental doctrines, and yet so combine fundamental errors as to modify, if not completely to destroy, their force. Of such errors, as held in the Roman Catholic Church, Sherlock says (p. 314) that " all the wit of man can not reconcile them with the Christian faith." On the other hand, a religious communion (as the strict Unitarians or Universalists) may deny fundamental truths, and yet sincerely accept Christianity as the only and perfect religion, and Christ as the Lord and Savior.
The views of the school of advanced New Testament criticism represented in varying degrees of positiveness by different scholars from Harnack to Paul Wernle of Basel (Die An. fdnge unserer Religion, Tubingen, 1904) attempt to retain the Christian religion as the final religion
4. Late and Christ as " the great Deliverer "
Schools from the bondage of legalism in reand . ligious ritual and doctrine, and at the
Theories. same time cast aside some of the evi
dent teachings of the books of the
New Testament, such as the bodily resurrection of
our Lord and those doctrines which it is claimed
413 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA ~~°atal Dootriaes
Paul invented by a process of reflection, such as the vicarious atonement through Christ's death. It would seem as if there could be no terms of agreement between this school and the received views of the Church. For what is fundamental in the views of the Church is in part completely set aside if the distinctive theology of the Pauline epistles is without warrant in fact and only a product of the Apostle's own brain.
Prof. Alfred Seeberg of Dorpat, in his Katechismus der Urchristenheit (Leipsic, 1903), has attempted to arrange the articles of a supposed primitive catechism of fundamental tenets, which, he thinks, it was the custom to carry or send to new churches for their adoption. He bases the existence of such a formula upon Rom. vi. 17 (" that form of doctrine which was delivered you "), II Thess. ii. 15, and other passages, and reconstructs it on the basis of I Cor. xv. 3‑5 and other Pauline statements. He includes in it a belief in the divine mission of the Son of God, his crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, and second coming. This formula became the nucleus of the Apostles' Creed and was the kernel of apostolic preaching. The treatment is suggestive and points to the fact that in the pages of the New Testament as they have been preserved there is a distinctive set of tenets which were new when they were proclaimed and composed the early Christian teaching.
An indirect attempt to define what is fundamental in the Christian system was made in the so‑called Chicago‑Lambeth Articles, adopted first by the General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Chicago, 1886, and then by the Lambeth Conference in 1888 (see LAMBETH CONFERENCE). They were intended as an invitation to church union and a basis for it, but were officially rejected by the Presbyterian General Assembly in the United States and were unfavorably received by other bodies. The fundamentals of the Articles (called the " Quadrilateral " because four in number) were: " The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as containing all things necessary to salvation, and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith; the Apostles' Creed, as the baptismal symbol, and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith; the two sacraments ordained by Christ himself‑baptism and the Supper of the Lord‑ministered with unfailing use of Christ's words of institution and of the elements ordained by him; the historic episcopate locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the unity of his Church."
D. S. SCHAFF.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: W. Chillingworth, The Religion of Protestants, i. 4‑5, Oxford, 1638; W. Sherlock, A Discourse about Christian Unity, Being a Defence of Bp. Stillinggett's Unreasonableness of Separation, chap. v., pp. 248‑316, London, 1681; J. A. Turretin, A Discourse concerning the Fundamental Articles in Religion ib 1720; D. Waterland, A Discourse of Fundamental, ib. 1735 (v. 73‑104 of ed. of Oxford, 1843); Tholuek, in Deutsche Zeitsehrift fir christlidee Theologie, 1851. Modern treatments of the subject do not appear under the title of Fundamentals; the topic is discussed more or lees directly in writings upon Christian Unity and Church Union, e.g., A. M. Fairbairn, The Place of Christ in Modern Theology, New York, 1893; J. Martinesu, The Seat of Authority in Religion,
London, 1898; A. Harnack, Das Weaen des Christentums, Berlin, 1900, Eng. tranel., What is Christianity, New York, 1901, which was ably answered by H. Cremer, Do# Wesen des Christentums, Giitersloh, 1901, Eng. tranel., Reply to Harnack an "The Essence of Christianity," New York. 1904. Consult also R. D. Browne, The Fundamental Truths of the Catholic Church, London, 1890.