Works, Book 4 · Letter 87
EPISTLE LXXXVII.
Another Letter more fully treating about the defining the Ratio of Fundamental Articles.
Mr. Hartlib,
YOU wish I had declared my self more largely: But what needed it? you had the substance of all I had to say. But if you would have it more fully, then thus.
1. By Fundamental Articles in the inquiry we mean such as are Necessarii cognitu & creditu ad Salutem; that is, Fundamenta Salutis, Fundamental to Salvation; not Fundamenta Theologicarum Veritatum, Principles whence Theological Verities are deduced. For these, though they may be sometimes coincident, are not the same.
2. What then though the Term Fundamental be Metaphorical and improper? yet we see it may easily (if we understand our own meaning) be expressed in clear and proper terms. And therefore this can be no impediment to the finding or defining the Ratio of such Articles, whereby they may be known and distinguished from others.
3. And what though the whole Scripture be Fundamentum or Principium Veritatum Theologicarum or Dogmatum Fidei? Yet is not every content in Scripture necessary to be known and believed explicitely unto Salvation; and therefore this Notion of Fundamentum nothing to the purpose; since (as I said) Principia Theologica, or Fundamentalia dogmatum, and Fundamentalia Salutis are not the same, but differ formally, though some of them may be materially coincident.
4. But the Definition of such Fundamental Articles would be dangerous, inconvenient, and subject to much reprehension, yea, in respect of the diversity of mens judgments, is in a manner impossible. This methinks is very strange, That any who acknowledge there be some Truths necessary to be known and explicitely believed unto Salvation, should yet deny there can be any Ratio or Character given whereby to know them; yea affirm it to be unsafe to determine any such, if it might be found, or that any enumeration of such Articles should be made. What? Cannot or may not those Truths be defined and known, without an explicite belief whereof we cannot be saved? What will follow upon this? Neither when we speak of defining here, do we mean any such matter as the foreign or exactness of a Logical definition, (which might entangle us in School-niceties and janglings,) but any description or designation of that Ratio or distinguishing Character whereby such Truths as are cognitu & creditu necessaria ad Salutem might be known from others. And this sure might be done without any such engagement in Logical scrupulosity.
5. As for the Objection of the Canon of the Oeeumenical Council of Ephesus; Ce…. I…p…. 1 Can. 7.Certainly that Council never intended to restrain the power of any Council or other publick Ecclesiastical Authority like it self, but only private Persons, from attempting to make any such Creed, Formula, or Confession of Faith, besides that of Nice. This I suppose may be gathered from those words, Si Episcopi, &c. Si Clerici, &c. Si Laici, &c. and the Censure to be laid upon them. Nor does it seem simply and altogether to forbid them neither, to compose any such for private instruction or use; but only for a publick intent, to be tendered as a Form of Confession of Faith to Pagans or Iews at their Baptism, or to Hereticks when they were again received into the Church. For why should not the Churches now, as well as then, have the like power, upon the like occasion, further to explicate or make more explicite the former Symbols of Faith, as the Council of Nice did that of the Apostles, yea or any Church or Churches that are or would be of the same Communion, to do it for themselves? For then we know the Churches were all of one Communion; now they are not, and therefore may provide for themselves according to their condition. Besides, how came the Creed of Athanasius to be since publickly received in the Church, or the Council of Chalcedon, after this of Ephesus, to make a new Exposition of Faith, (unless this Canon were understood as aforesaid,) since neither of them are the same with that of Nice? Or how could the Reformed Churches make such publick Confessions for themselves as they have done? Thus I think I have declared my self largely enough now; and perhaps more largely than befitted me, when I consider to whom it hath reference. But my hope is, you will conceal the Author's name from any man, and not reveal it save to Mr. Dury alone. And so, with my best affection, I remain
Your assured Friend, without subscription of my name.