Gibson on Article XIV: Of Works of Supererogation

The word supererogation comes directly from the Latin. Starting with the simple verb “rogare,” we note that in classical writers it is used, sometimes with ” legem ” or ” populum ” after it, sometimes absolutely, in a technical sense, meaning ” to ask the people about a law,” and so simply to ” propose a bill,” or ” introduce a law.” Hence the compound verb “erogare” was used in connection with a money bill, and came to mean ” to pay out money from the public treasury, after asking the consent of the people,” and so more generally, beyond the sphere of public law, to ” expend ” or ” disburse money.” ^ From this the double compound ” super-erogare ” was formed with the meaning, to ” pay over and above,” equivalent to the Greek ‘rrpoaZairavav, As such its earliest occurrence is in the Latin versions of the New Testament, where it appears in S. Luke x. 35 in the parable of the Good Samaritan, ” Whatsoever thou spendest more ” : Qiiodcunqiie supererogaveris. This rendering was current before the days of S. Jerome,

• Thus in the Latin of Codex Bezie ” erogasset ” stands for davavrjcrdyros in S. Luke xv. 14.

ii<

fM

L^l’

‘k

being found in the writings of S. Ambrose,^ as well as in some MSS. of the ” Old Latin ” ; ^ but it was its adoption in the Vulgate that made it the common property of Western Christendom.^ From it in later times the substantive ” supererogatio ” was formed, and the phrase ” opera supererogationis ” was adopted by ecclesiastical writers as the technical name for the “excess of merit” attributed to the saints, and for what the

Article calls Yoluntary works besides, over and above God’s commandments, in this sense it

was used not infrequently by writers of the thirteenth century, such as Alexander of Hales, Albertus Magnus, and Thomas Aquinas; but until this period it is doubtful whether the phrase is ever found, or whether the verb occurs except in direct connection with S. Luke X. 35.

IL The History of the Growth of the System of

Indulgences.

It was the open sale of indulgences, which was closely connected with the doctrine of works of supererogation, that first roused the indignation of Luther, and led to the revolt from the Papacy. But the doctrine and the practice only grew up very gradually, step by step, with no perception on the part of anyone of what the ultimate outcome of it all would be. The starting-point, in tracing out its history, may be found in very early days,

• S. Ambrose, Horn. vii. in Lueavi.

[…]

in the regard for (1) martyrdom, and (2) virginity, felt by the primitive Church.

1. It was only natural that the memory of those who had laid down their lives for the faith of Christ should be held in the greatest honour, and that their intercessions should be regarded as especially efficacious, and should be eagerly sought after. And as there were many ” Confessors ” who had suffered mutilation or banishment for the same cause, without being called upon to seal their testimony with their lives, it was equally natural that the same feelings of regard and admiration should be extended to them also. From this sprang, during the persecution of Decius, what we can only call the first form of indulgences. During this persecution, which raged so fiercely at Carthage in the middle of the third century, while there were many noble instances of men confessing their faith bravely, and enduring whatever was inflicted upon them rather than deny their Master, yet there were also many cases of grievous apostasy. Some Christians under the stress of persecution went so far as to deny Christ altogether, and to sacrifice to the gods of the heathen (sacrificati) ; others offered incense (thurificati) \ others obtained tickets {lihelli)^ declaring that they had thus cleared themselves from the crime of Christianity (libellatici). With these different cases the Church was called upon to deal; and under the wise guidance of S. Cyprian she determined that the peace of the Church might be granted to those who through weakness had lapsed, but that a time of penitential discipline must first be passed by them to test and prove their sorrow. Some, however, of the lapsed were impatient, and could ill brook the delay of communion. They therefore persuaded the Confessors to intercede for them, and ask for their readmission to the sacraments of the Church. It will easily be seen that it was difficult for the authorities to refuse the request

being found in the writings of S. Ambrose,^ as well as in some MSS. of the ” Old Latin ” ; ^ but it was its adoption in the Vulgate that made it the common property of Western Christendom.^ From it in later times the substantive ” supererogatio ” was formed, and the phrase ” opera supererogationis ” was adopted by ecclesiastical writers as the technical name for the “excess of merit” attributed to the saints, and for what the

Article calls voluntary works besides, over and above God’s commandments. In this sense it

was used not infrequently by writers of the thirteenth century, such as Alexander of Hales, Aibertus Magnus, and Thomas Aquinas; but until this period it is doubtful whether the phrase is ever found, or whether the verb occurs except in direct connection with S. Luke X. 35.

11. The History of the Growth of the System of

Indulgences.

It was the open sale of indulgences, which was closely connected with the doctrine of works of supererogation, that first roused the indignation of Luther, and led to the revolt from the Papacy. But the doctrine and the practice only grew up very gradually, step by step, with no perception on the part of anyone of what the ultimate outcome of it all would be. The starting-point, in tracing out its history, may be found in very early days,

• S. Ambrose, Horn. vii. in Lucam.

[…]

»f

in the regard for (1) martyrdom, and (2) virginity, felt by the primitive Church.

1. It was only natural that the memory of those who had laid down their lives for the faith of Christ should be held in the greatest honour, and that their intercessions should be regarded as especially efficacious, and should be eagerly sought after. And as there were many ” Confessors ” who had suffered mutilation or banishment for the same cause, without being called upon to seal their testimony with their lives, it was equally natural that the same feelings of regard and admiration should be extended to them also. From this sprang, during the persecution of Decius, what we can only call the first form of indulgences. During this persecution, which raged so fiercely at Carthage in the middle of the third century, while there were many noble instances of men confessing their faith bravely, and enduring whatever was inflicted upon them rather than deny their Master, yet there were also many cases of grievous apostasy. Some Christians under the stress of persecution went so far as to deny Christ altogether, and to sacrifice to the gods of the heathen (sacrificati) ; others offered incense (thurifkati) ; others obtained tickets (libelli), declaring that they had thus cleared themselves from the crime of Christianity (libellatici). With these different cases the Church was called upon to deal; and under the wise guidance of S. Cyprian she determined that the peace of the Church might be granted to those who through weakness had lapsed, but that a time of penitential discipline must firet be passed by them to test and prove their sorrow. Some, however, of the lapsed were impatient, and could ill brook the delay of communion. They therefore persuaded the Confessors to intercede for them, and ask for their readmission to the sacraments of the Church. It will easily be seen that it was difficult for the authorities to refuse the request

of these men who had suffered so much for the Church, and unfortunately some of the Confessors were not proof against the moral dangers to which these appeals to their kindness exposed them. Not content with interceding for the lapsed, they clauned the right to restore them to the peace of the Church, and to grant sometimes to a lapsed person and his friends (cum suis) lihelli pacts} or tickets to admit them to communion without having undergone the penitential discipline imposed upon them. Here, then, we meet with a form of ” indulgence,” i.e. a shortening or remission of canonical penance. But clearly there was in itself nothing beyond the power of the Church in granting this. The claim of the Confessors to grant it in their own right was steadily resisted by Cyprian ; but the Church, which had imposed the penance, and to which the power of ” binding and loosing” had been granted by Christ Himself,^ was within her rights in shortening the time, and readmit-ting to communion those of whose true repentance she was assured. The whole episode, however, required to be noticed here, because historically the ” libelli pacis ” form a sort of precedent for the indulgences of the medieval Church, though, as will presently be shown, these claimed to be far wider reaching than anything which had ever entered the minds of the Confessors who granted the original ” libelli.”

2. The special reverence with which the early Church regarded virginity is well known. It is based on the teaching of S. Paul in 1 Cor. vii., in which, though

he permits marriage, he certainly expresses a preference

under the then existing conditions — for the unmarried state. ” Concerning virgins ” he has ” no commandment

2 S. Matt, xviii. 18.

(praxeptmi) of the Lord,” but he gives his ” judgment ” {consilium^ and advises that such remain single. From these words grew the distinction subsequently drawn between ” precepts,” which all were bound to obey, and ” counsels,” which it was not necessary for a person to follow. From this it was only a step to teach that by following the “counsels” it was possible for a Christian to do more than was required of him by God, and hence the notion of a special ” merit ” attaching to the state of virginity and to other special states or conditions. This idea was greatly encouraged by the devotion to the monastic life which is so marked in the latter part of the fourth century ; and from this time onward it is generally recognised that there are two kinds of life within the Church, the one for ordinary Christians mixing in the world, in which men are permitted to marry, and to engage in the ordinary business of life, though strictly bound to keep the “commandments” of God; the other, which is above the ordinary life of men, in which the ” counsels of perfection” are carried out, those who are thus aiming at being ” perfect ” selling all their possessions (cf. S. Matt. xix. 21), abstaining from marriage, and devoting themselves entirely to the service of God.2

These facts require to be borne in mind, although their full significance and the use that might be made of them did not appear for several centuries. The system of a commutation of penance for money, which was introduced about the seventh century through the ” Penitentials,” cannot have failed to be seriously injurious to the moral sense of Christendom, however innocent may have been

• Cf. also 2 Cor. viii. 8 and 10, where consilium occurs again. The distinction is recognised by S. Augustine, and is used by him to illustrate S. Luke X. 35; Quosst. JSvangel, II. xix., and Emrr. in Ps. cxxv. 16.

■ ”

its original intention.^ But the system of ” Indulgences ” proper is scarcely found before the eleventh century and the time of the Crusades.^ It is confessed on all sides that this great movement marks an epoch in the history of indulgences, and that practically a new departure was taken at the Council of Clermont (1095), when Urban ii. declared that to those who would take up arms against the Infidel, he remitted the penance due to their sins, and promised to those who should die in the combat the pardon of their sins and life eternal ; ^ and when the Council formulated their decision in these words —

” Whosoever shall go to Jerusalem to liberate the Church of God out of pure devotion, and not for the purpose of obtaining honour or money, let the journey be counted in him of all penance.” *

From this time may be said to date the medieval system, whereby an ” Indulgence ” or remission of penance, and of some or all of the temporal penalties attached to sin, was granted in return for certain acts of devotion whereby the Church profited. Such indulgences were granted, not only to those who ” took the Cross,” but to those who took part in the building of churches and cathedrals, and in many other pious acts, so that practically the expenditure of a certain sum of money could always secure them, and the line between this and the actual sale of an indulgence for money was a very

• There are, however, indications of something like it in the ninth century, when John viii. (882) said that those who had been killed in war against the heathen, fighting for the Church, received life eternal ; an<l that he gave them abaolutic/n, as much as he had power to do. See L^picier, History of Ijidulgences, p. 189.

[…]

thin one, and not easy to discern. Originally the idea may have been only of the remission of canonical penance ; but it very soon came to mean a great deal more than this. The canonical penance did not exhaust the temporal, as distinct from the etemaly penalties of sin ; and since ” purgatory ” was a part of the temporal penalty, the indulgence was supposed to avail for a remission of a part or all of the pains to be there undergone. Moreover, the indulgence could be used for others than the person who performed the meritorious act, and could thus be transferred to the account of the departed, and used for the benefit of the souls in purgatory ; and since it was called indiscriminately […] and ” venia peccatorum,” and was said to be granted a culpa et a venia the door was opened to the notion that

[…]

’ According to the formal theory of the Church of Rome, as laid down by Sixtus iv. in a Constitution of 1477, indulgences for the departed only avail jwfr i/wdnm sujragli, i.e. “the Church has no direct power over the souls of the departed. She can but humbly entreat God to accept the Hierits of Christ, and, having respect to them, mercifully to remit the whole or a portion of the pains due to the souls suflfering in purgatory ” (Addis and Arnold’s Catholic Dictima/ry, p. 485). If this is all, it is impossible for the person who procures the indulgence to know whether it has been of any avail at all.

^ There was no doubt that this form was anciently used ; but the Council of Constance (141 8) decreed that all indulgences granted with this formula

\.

it involved a promise of eternal forgiveness ; and thus the grossest errors and superstitions were admitted and, it cannot be doubted, were encouraged by the authorities in order to fill the coffers of the Church. Thus an enormous stimulus was given to the system by the institution of the “Jubilee” in the year 1300, when Boniface viii. offered ” the fullest forgiveness of sins ” to all those who for fifteen days shoidd devoutly visit the churches of S. Peter and S. Paul in Kome.^ This naturally drew a vast crowd of pilgrims to the city, and greatly enriched the Church ; consequently, instead of being held at the expiration of every hundred years, as was originally intended, the period was shortened, first to fifty years by Clement vi. by his famous Bull ” Unigenitus,” in which he boldly expounded the doctrine of the ” treasury of the Church ” committed to the successors of S. Peter ; ^ then by Urban vi. to thirty-three years (1389) ; and finally by Paul II. to twenty-five (1470). Naturally, protests were raised from time to time,^ but in spite of them the system which evoked the scorn of devout Churchmen like Dante,*

were revoked and annulled ; and Benedict xiv. {De Syn. Dionc. xiii. 18. 7) holds that all such are spurious ; while modem writers say that if the phrase remission of sins occurs in the grant of an indulgence, it means the remission of punishment. See Addis and Arnold’s Catholic Dictionary, p. 482.

** Ora si va con motti, e con iscede, A predicare, e pur che ben si rida, Oonfia il cappuccio, e piu non si richiede, Ma tale uccel nel becchetto s’ annida, Che se *1 vulgo il vedesse, vederebbe La i^erdonanza, di che si confida,

?f

as well as of Chaucer^ and Langland,^ grew into the scandal of the open sale of indulgences by Tetzel and the ” quaestores.” At the beginning of the sixteenth century, in the words of the Eoman Catholic historian, Lingard, the preachers, ” not content with their sermons from the pulpit, offered indulgences in the streets and markets, in taverns and in private houses ; they even taught, if we may credit the interested declamation of their adversary, that every contributor, if he paid on his own account, infallibly opened to himself the gates of heaven ; if on account of the dead, instantly liberated a soul from the prison of purgatory.”^

I -

‘I

III. The Theological Defence offered for Indulgences, involving Works of Supererogation, and the Teaching of Scripture on the Subject.

It has been necessary to give this brief sketch of the growth of the practical system of indulgences, because it

Per cui tanta stoltezza in terra crebbe, Che sanza pruova d’ alcun testimonio Ad ogne promession si converrebbe. Now is our preaching done with jestings slight And mockings, and if men but laugh agape, The cowl puffs out, nor ask men if ‘tis right ; Yet such a bird doth nestle in their cape. That if the crowd beheld it, they would know What pardons they rely on for escape. And thus such madness there on earth doth grow, That without proof of any evidence. To each Indulgence eager crowds will flow.”

— Plumptre’s Translation. ’ See the description of the […] That streit was comen from the court of Rome,” in the prologue to the Canterbury Tales — ” His wallet lay befome him in his lappe, Bretful of pardon come from Rome al bote.” ’ Piers the Plowman, Passus I. 1. 66 scq. Pass. X. 1. 316 seq, * Lingard, History of England, vol. iv. c. vii. Cf. for the state of things in England at a somewhat earlier period, Gascoyne’s Liber Veritatum, p. 123.

is only in connection with them that the notion of “works of supererogation” came into prominence. Nothing is more certain from history than the fact of the gradual growth of the system, bit by bit, without any clear conception being formed by anyone of what it really meant, or very much serious thought being bestowed upon it. But when the custom of granting indulgences had made its way and was adopted into the regular system of the Church, it was impossible to avoid awkward questions being raised. Explanations of its meaning were asked for, and a theological defence of it was required. This was supplied by the schoolmen, and in it ” works of supererogation ” play an important part. The original system, whereby canonical penance imposed by the Church was removed by the same authority, was naturally and properly defended as the exercising of the power of “binding and loosing” which the Church possessed by Christ’s own gift. But when the indulgence was something more than this, when it could be transferred to the benefit of others, and availed for the dead and mitigated the pains of purgatory, something more was needed. Even the doctrine of the union of the faithful in the one Body, together with the power of intercessory prayer, was totally inadequate to bear the superstructure of the popular system. Accordingly the schoolmen of the thirteenth century took up a phrase that had been used some time earlier, and elaborated the doctrine of the “thesaurus ecclesige.” Availing themselves of the old distinction between ” counsels ” and ” precepts,” they

taught that the Yoluntary works over and above

God’s OOmmandments, which had been performed by the saints, and which were not needed to ” merit ” their own salvation, were not lost or wasted, but went into the treasury of the Church; and that, together with the infinite merits of Christ, these WOrks of

supererogation formed a deposit of superabundant good works, which the Pope, as holding the keys of the kingdom of heaven, could unlock and dispense for the benefit of the faithful, so as to pay the debt of the temporal punishment of their sins, which they might still owe to God.

This was the theological defence of the system, which assumed consistency in the hands of the great schoolmen of the thirteenth century, Alexander of Hales (1245), Albertus Magnus (1280), Bonaventura (1274), and S. Thomas Aquinas (1270).^ The language of the last, if the Supplement may be quoted as his, is especially instructive. It betrays a certain amount of uneasiness, and it is clear that Aquinas felt that his task was a difficult one ; erroneous opinions on the subject were common, but the Church had approved of indulgences, and therefore they had to be defended.2

• Alexander of Hales is very strong in insisting that the indulgence avails “ad forum Dei ” as well as ** ad forum Ecclesije,” and that it is more than a mere relaxation of canonical penance (Summa, pars iv. 9. 23, art. 1, and see art. 2). ” Indulgentiae ct relaxationes hunt de mentis supererogationis membrorum Christi, quap sunt spiritalis thesaurus ecclesiae. Hunc autem thesaurum non est omnium dispensare, sed tantum eorum, qui prrecipuc vicera Christi gerunt.” ** Prajexistente poena debitae et sufficientis contritionis, potest suimmts pontifex totam pcRitam dehilam peccatori jtoinitenti dimittere.” ” Probabilitcr et veris-sime praesumitur, quod illis qui sunt in purgatorio potest ^iontifex facere indulgentias. Nota tanicn, quod plura requiruntur ad hoc, quod debito modo fiat indulgentia : soil, potestas clavium ex parte conferentis ; ex parte ejus, cui confertur, charitas, credulitas, devotio ; inter utrum causa et modus — Potest ergo dici, quod illis qui sunt in purgatorio Itossunt fieri relaxationes secundum conditiones pr^dictas per modum sufl’ragii sive impetrationis, non per modum judiciariaB absolutionis sive commutationis.” These and other quotations are given in Gieseler’s Church History, vol. iii. p. 373, where see also the teaching of Albertus Magnus, In Sent., Lib. IV. dist. 20, arts. 16 and 17 ; and for the teaching of Aquinas see the Summa Suppl., Pars iii. Q. 25-27.

’ Cf. Creigh ton’s History of the Papacy, vol. v. p. 60 : ” The starting-point of both these theologians [Bonaventura and Aquinas] was prevailing

But although a defence was thus elaborated for the system, it can hardly be seriously maintained that it can be proved from Scripture. The theory of a super-abundant ” thesaurus ecclesiae,” and of good works that can thus be arbitrarily transferred from one to another, rests on a wholly false notion of our relation to God. The idea of a quantitative satisfaction for all things wrongly done, that has to be made either in this life or in the next, but which ” is capable of being commuted for the ceremonial utterance of a prayer or the visit to a shrine, each good for a given number of days, or years, or centuries,”^ can claim no support whatever from Scripture ; the notion that men can not

only render unto God as much as they are

bound to do, but that they may actually do more

for His sake than of bounden duty is required,

is directly contrary to the words of our Lord, quoted in

the Article: When ye have done all that are commanded you, say. We be unprofitable

servants (S. Luke xviL 10). Yet, as a certain scriptural foundation has been alleged for the doctrine, it is necessary to consider the passages on which the maintainers of it have relied. They are mainly two — (1) the incident of the rich young ruler, (2) the

practice. Indulgences existed, and therefore were right. It was their business to give a rational explanation of what the Church had thought fit to do.” See Bonaventura, In IV. Sent., dist. 20: “Universalis ecclesia has relaxationes acceptat ; sed constat quod ipsa non errat, ergo vere fiunt.”

1 Plumptre’s SpirUs in Prison, p. 307. If it be said, as it is sometimes, it is a very difficult thing to obtain a real and valid indulgence, for that it is of no avail unless you have “made so good a confession (a very difficult thing to do) as to be free from all sin, even venial ” ; and unless you are “on your guard against every occasion of sin afterwards” (Cor C(yrdi loquitur, p. 233), it can only be replied, that in this case the popular system, whereby indulgences are publicly offered to those who visit certain churches, or perform certain devotions, is seriously misleading, and that the necessity for fulfilling these conditions ought to be publicly stated in every case in which an indulgence is offered.

teaching of our Lord and S. Paul on marriage and virginity.

1. The rich young ruler. The incident referred to is that related in S. Matt. xix. 16-22. It is argued by Bellarmine, who adduces it, that as the young man had “kept the commandments,” he had done all that was necessary to obtain eternal life, and that therefore the words, ” If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven,” contain not a ” precept,” but a ” counsel ” ; and thus, if the direction had been followed, a ” work of supererogation ” would have been performed. To this it has been fairly replied that since the charge was given in answer to the question, ” What la^k I yet ? ” it is obvious that something was still wanting, and that there is no room for the notion of works of supererogation here. It is clear from the young man’s previous answer that he had formed a very inadequate conception of his duty to God, and of the real range of the claim which God had upon him. It was in order to help him to realise this that the further direction was given, and the conclusion of the narrative shows that there was indeed something “lacking” to him, for “when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.”

2. The teaching of S. Paul on virginity in 1 Cor. vii. has been already referred to, with its implied distinction between ” precepts ” and ” counsels.” Our Lord’s words, in which He speaks of some who have ” made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake ” (S. Matt. xix. 12), are also referred to in this connection; and it is inferred that those who follow the ” counsel ” lay up a superabundant store of good works which can ” satisfy ” for others, as they are not needed 29

If. f !

for those who perform them. Now it may be freely admitted that a distinction may be rightly drawn between ” precepts ” and ” counsels.” There are some things which are duties for all alike, which are commanded to all men generally, and can therefore be put in the form of universal “precepts.” There are other things to which all men are clearly not called. It is obvious on the face of it that there can be no ” precept ” to abstain from marriage, or the obedience of men would bring the world to an end. And yet there are those to whom the words of Holy Scripture on the virgin state, or the command to ” sell all thou hast,” come with an imperative voice ; and they feel constrained to obey. To them the counsel has become a precept. By obeying they perform no ” works of supererogation,” but are simply following the Divine voice, which tells their conscience that the charge is for them. By rejecting it, they may imperil their salvation, for our Lord Himself says, when speaking on this very subject : ” He that is able to receive it, let him receive it ” (S. Matt. xix. 12y

If, then, the admission of a distinction between precepts and counsels does not involve the theory of works of supererogation, the whole scriptural foundation for them breaks down, and we may reasonably conclude

that they cannot be taught without arrogancy

and impiety, and that they are opposed to our Lord’s words already referred to : ” When ye shall have done all the things that are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants ; we have done that which it was our duty to do.”

Notes

• De Hatres. c. 8 : ” De perfectione justiEcatorum, et de operibus supererogationis.”
• The ” Rhemish New Testament” (1st ed. 1582) attempted to Anglicise the verb, and rendered S. Luke x. 35 : *• Whatsoever thou dost supererogate”; but it was found impossible to naturalise the clumsy Latinisni, and it was withdrawn in the Douay version (1609), which is content with the natural ren<lering, “sj>end over and above.”
• The ” Rhemish New Testament ” (1st ed. 1582) attempted to Anglicise the verb, and rendered S. Luke x. 35 : “Whatsoever thou dost supererogate”; ))ut it was found impossible to naturalise the clumsy Latinisni, and it was withdrawn in the Douay version (1609), which is content with the natural ren<lering, “sjieud over and above.’
• S. Cyprian, Ep. xv. See on the whole subject Archbishop Benson’s article - Libelli” in the Dictionary of Christian AntiquUies, vol. ii. p. “8 1 .
• Cf. Cheetham’s Churdi Uistory, p. 349.
• On the Penitential System and the Commutation of Penance sec Strong’s Bampton LectureSy pp. 314 and 342, where the good and evil of the system are both frankly recognised.
• The words of the Bull are these : ” Non solum plenam ct largioreni, imo plenissimam suorum concedimus veniam peccatorum. ” On the Jubilee sue Robertson, Church History, vol. vi. p. 326 seq. - Cf. Neander, Church History , vol. ix. p. 59 (Eng. tr.). ^ See an account of some of the earlier and less known protests in Neander, Church History, vol. vii. p. 487. The later denunciations of the whole system by Wiclif, and Huss, and Jerome of Prague are well known. See Creighton’s History of the Papacy, vol. i. p. 32.’). * See Paradiso, Canto xxix. 1. 123-115—
• “It is a further question whether a person’s salvation may not be very seriously involved in his obeying a call from God, even although that to which he is called may not be in itself necessary to salvation. ” — Pusey, The TnUh oftl^e Office qfthe English Churchy p. 215.