FUNDAMENTAL
320
FUNDAMENTAL
as the rule and Law of Christians" (Systeme, p. 53).
Yet among the various portions of the Church we
must, he tells us, distinguish four classes: (1) the sects
which have retained all the truths taught in the Scrip-
tures; (2) those which, while retaining the more im-
portant truths, have mingled with them superstitions
and errors; (3) those which have retained the funda-
mental truths, but have added doctrines which are in-
compatible with them; and (4) those wiiich have set
the fundamental verities altogether aside. This last
class are dead members of the mystical body (ibid.,
p. 52). Those who have retained the fundamental
articles of the faith are, one and all, living parts of the
Church. When he comes to define precisely which
doctrines are, and which are not, fundamental, Jurieu
bids us fall back on the rule of Vipcent of L^rins:
Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ah omnibus. Wher-
ever all bodies of Christians still existing, and possess-
ing some importance in the world, agree in accepting
a dogma, we have, in that agreement, a criterion which
may be considered infallible. Among truths so guar-
anteed are, e. g., the doctrine of the Trinity, of the
Divinity of Jesus Christ, of the Redemption, the satis-
faction, original sin, creation, grace, the immortality
of the soul, the eternity of punishment (ibid., 23G-237).
This work was followed, in 1G88, by another entitled
" Traits de I'unitJ de I'Eglise et des articles fondamen-
taux", written in reply to Nicole's criticisms. In the
same year appeared Bossuet's famous "Histoire des
Variations des Eglises protestantes ". The Bishop of
Meaux pointed out that this was the third different
theory of the Church advanced by Protestant theolo-
gians to defend their position. The first reformers
liad accepted the Scriptural doctrine of an indefecti-
ble visible Church. When it was demonstrated that
this doctrine was totally incompatible with their de-
nunciations of pre-reforniation Christianity, their suc-
cessors took refuge in the theory of an invisible
( 'hurch. It had been made patent that this was con-
trary to the express words of Scripture ; and their con-
troversialists had, in consequence, been compelled to
look for a new position. This Jurieu had provided in
his theory of a Church founded upon fundamental
articles. Bossuet's polemic was the death-blow of the
new theory. Jurieu, it is true, replied; but only in-
volved himself in yet further difficulties. He argued
against the main thesis of the "Variations" by con-
tending that changes of dogma had been characteris-
tic of the Christian Church from its earliest days.
Bossuet, in his " Avert issement aux Protestants sur
les lettres de M. Jurieu", was not .slow in pointing out
that if this were true, then the principle. Quod semper,
quod ubique, quod iib omnibus — according to Jurieu the
criterion of a fundamental article — had ceased to pos-
sess the smallest value. (Avertissement, I, n. 22.)
In regard to the relation of the fundamental doc- trines to salvation, Jurieu is in agreement with the English divines already quoted. "By fundamental points", he says, " we understand certain general prin- ciples of the Christian religion, a distinct faith and be- lief in which are necessary to salvation" (Traits, p. 495). Precisely the same view is expressed by Locke in his "Reasonableness of Christianity". After enumerating what he regards as the fundamental ar- ticles of faith, he says: " An explicit belief of these is absolutely required of all those to whom the Gospel of Jesus Christ is preached, and salvation through his name proposed" (Works, ed., 1740, I, 583). Water- land's "Di-scourse of Fundamentals" should perhaps be mentioned, since it is the only work by an Anglican divine explicitly devoted to this subject. Its pro- fessed aim is to determine a basis for intercommun- ion among various Christian bodies. But the whole treatment is quite academic. It had become patent how impo.ssible was the task of determining which articles were fundamental. No one could decide what should be the principle of selection. Waterland
enumerates no less than ten different views on this
point, which he rejects as inadequate. "We have",
he says, " almost as many different rules for determin-
ing fundamentals as there are different sects or par-
ties." Needless to say, his own principle has as little
authority as those which he rejects. The theory had,
in fact, been weighed and found wanting. It afforded
neither a basis for reunion nor a tenable doctrine as to
the constitution of the Church. From this time it ap-
pears to have ceased to occupy the attention of Prot-
estant writers. Doubtless the ideas which the theory
embodies still have a wide range. There are numbers
to-day who still think that while the differences be-
tween the various bodies of Christians are unessential,
there is a residuum of fundamental truth common to
all the principal groups of believers. From time to
time, this view has taken effect in efforts after partial
reunion among certain of the sects. These events,
however, fall outside our scope: for they stand in no
historic connexion with that doctrine of fundamental
articles, which in the seventeenth century filled so
important a place in Protestant theology.
It remains briefly to notice the manner in which the theory conflicts with Catholic dogma. For a formal refutation the reader is referred to those articles in which the Catholic doctrines in question are expressly treated. (1) In the first place the theory is repugnant to the nature of Christian faith as understood by the Church. According to her teaching, the essential note of this faith lies in the complete and unhesitating acceptance of the whole depositum on the ground that it is the revealed word of God. The conscious rejec- tion of a single article of this deposit is sufficient to render a man guilty of heresy. The question is not as to the relative importance of the article in question, but solely as to whether it has been revealed by God to man. This is clearly put by St. Thomas Aquinas in the "Summa Theol.", II-II, Q. v, a. 3: "In a heretic who rejects a single article of the faith, there remains not the virtue of faith whether as united with charity [formata], or as severed from charity [informis] . . . ■The formal object of faith is the Suprenie Truth in so far as revealed in the Holy Scriptures and in that doc- trine of the Church which proceeds from the Supreme Truth. Hence if anyone does not hold to the doc- trine of the Church as to an infallible and divine rule, ... he does not possess the virtue of faith." The Church does not deny that certain truths are of more vital moment than others. There are some as to which it is important that all the faithful should pos- sess explicit knowledge. In regard to others explicit knowledge is not necessary. But it denies emphat- ically that any Christian may reject or call in question any truth, sm.all or great, revealed by God. On the other hand, the system of Fundamental Articles, in each and all of its forms, involves that while some truths are of such importance that they must of neces- sity be held, there are others of less importance which an individual Christian or body of Christians may freely deny without forfeiture of grace. (2) No less complete is the disagreement as to what is requisite in order that a body of Christians may be a part of the true Church of Christ. In the system imder review it is mamtained that all the sects which accept the fund- amental articles of the faith are partakers in this privilege. The Catholic Church knows of one and only one test to determine this question of member- ship in Christ's body. This test does not lie in the acceptance of this or that particular doctrine, but in communion with the Apostolic hierarchy. Such is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers from the earliest times. By way of illustration the words of Saint Irena'us may here be cited: "They who are in the Church", he writes, "must yield obe- dience to the presbyters, who have the succession from the Apostles, and who with the succc'ssion of the episcopate have received . . . the sure gift of truth.
