Boultbee on Article XIV: Of Works of Supererogation

The derivation and use of the word supererogation may be thus traced : Rogare was the technical word used for propos- ing a law to the Roman people assembled in CJomitia (Anglic^ to bring in a hill). Erogare was similarly applied if the de- cree was one for paying money out of the treasury. Hence Superogare easily came to mean to pay over and above the amount granted.

[…]

there are such works.’ It ought rather to be said * It is mani- fest there is such a word.’ Its meaning is another question.

The history of the text of the Article presents no point of interest. It was retained from the Articles of 1552 with the slight change of the word * impiety ’ instead of * iniquity.’

Observations on Article XIV.

The rise of the doctrine of supererogation is assigned by Mosheim to the thirteenth century. By this may no doubt be understood, not that there are no traces of the name and idea before that time, but that it then assumed form and con- sistency. Gieseleri thus writes : * The Aristotelian divines of the 13th century readily entered on the task of vindicating dogmatically this most monstrous of all papal pretensions. Alexander of Hales and Albertus Magnus invented the doc- trine of the Thesaurus supererogationis perfectorum, out of which, by virtue of the power of the keys, not only the tem- poral penalties of the living for sin, but agreeably to the ex- tension of the power of the keys over the dead long ere now established, the penalties also of men suffering in purgatory were discharged. Thomas Aquinas completed this theory.’ Gieseler adds this extract in a note ; it will illustrate the teach- ing which first fashioned into a system the Roman dogmas : * Indulgences hold good both ecclesiastically and in respect of the judgment of God, for the remission of the residuum of punishment after contrition and absolution and confession. The reason why they hold good is the imity of the mystical body in which many have supererogated in works of penitence beyond the measure of their debts, and have patiently endured many unjust tribulations, by which a multitude of punish- ments could have been discharged, had they been owing. Of whose merits so great is the abundance, that they exceed the pimishment now due to the living, and especially by reason of the merit of Christ… But it has been said above that one man can satisfy for another. But the saints, in whom a

‘EccL Hibt; 3rd Period, Div. ni. c. 6, § 84.

126 ’ ARTICLE XIV.

superabundance of works of satisfaction is found, wrought not works of this kind definitely for him who needs remission (otherwise he would obtain remission without an indulgence), but in common for the whole Church … and so the aforesaid merits are the common property of the whole Church. But that which is lihe common property of a number is dis- tributed to individuals of that number, at the will of him who presides over it.’ *

Such was the teaching which formed the Tridentine di- vines. The student will understand with what a revulsion of disgust the Reformers shrank back from these scholastic theo- logians ; and will comprehend the feeling which prompted the epithets which they often applied to them.

The Council of Trent handled this subject very briefly. The subject of Indulgences was treated in the final session, which was exceedingly hurried. We have therefore only this general decree on indulgences (Session XXY.) : ^ Since the power of con&rring indulgences has been granted by Christ to the Church, and since the Church from the earliest times has used a power of this kind, divinely given, this holy Coun- cil teaches and enjoins, &c.’ (The remainder of the decree forbids the abuses of the improper vending of indulgences.) We have not, therefore, a decree of the Council of Trent di- rectly on the subject of supererogation.

But Leo X. wrote thus : * The Roman Pontiff may for rea- sonable causes, by his apostoHcal authority grant indulgences out of the superabundant merits of Christ and the saints to the faithful who are united to Christ by charity, as well for the living as the dead.’

Bellarmine^ defines this matter more precisely. ’ There is an infinite treasure of the satisfaction purchased by the pas- sion of Christ extant in the Church … The price of Christ’s blood hath not been applied to all, the most part of naen being subject to condemnation ; there remaineth then a great deal of the price of Christ’s death to be applied ’ — and the bull of

’ Thomas Aquinas, * Comm. in Sent.’ lib. iv. 2 WiUett, vol. ix. pp. 243-246.

Clement VI. says ’ to the heap of which treasure the merits of the blessed mother of God and of all the saints add support.’

To one knowing the New Testament it is sufficient refuta- tion to state the doctrine thus fully and broadly. But we add the following observations :

1. If Christ’s merits are infinite, how can finite additions increase them ? Infinity plus worlds is stiU only infinity.

2. The full antidote is to be found in the relation of the Christian to God. Reconcileid in Christ he is a son, not a ser- vant. His good works are the outflowing of filial affection, not works of a servant wrought for wages. So &r &s they are otherwise they are not in him gopd works at alL

3. The Twelfth Article has taught us that the good works of the justified cannot endure the severity of God’s judgment. They can still less supply the deficiencies of other men, even if God had anywhere promised to accept such a substitution.

4. They who scoff at the imputation of Christ’s righteous- ness as , an imreal mockery of goodness have accepted the most uiweal mockery of all,. namely the merits of one sinner applied to the redemption of another sinner, neither being in the least cognisant of the transaction (see Aquinas above).

Notes

• . The root of the error lies in the fundamental heresies noted under the previous Articles, relating to the nature of original sin ; salvation by grace ; the state of the justified ; the works of the justified, &c.