Maclear and Williams on Article XIV: Of Works of Supererogation

i. Connection. The Fourteenth is another supple- mentary Article on the subject of good works. If, as we have seen, by our own works we cannot please God, and if those done, even after the reception of Grace, are ac- ceptable only in Oirist, while those done apart from the Grace of God have the nature of sin, is it possible for any to do more good works than of bounden duty is required of them, since every good work is simply an act of cor- respondence to Grace received ?

ii. Language. This is what has sometimes been asserted, and it is with this doctrine respecting ” works of supererogation ” that the Article is concerned. The only point respecting its language, which requires notice, is that the English clause ” voluntary works besides, over and

dicite: Si

inutiles sumus.

they do more for his sake then of bounden duetie is required : Wheras Christe sayth playnly, When ye haue done al that are commaunded to you, say, We be vnprofitable seruantes.

above, God’s commandments, etc.,” is fuller than the corre- spending Latin, ” opera quae supererogationis appellant1.”

iii. Supererogation is a Latin ecclesiastical word and came into English through the Vulgate, where it occurs as the translation of the injunction of the good Samaritan to the host at the inn respecting the man who fell amongst thieves, Take care of him, and whatsoever thou spendest more (quodcunque supererogaveris), I, when I come again, will repay thee2. In Classical Latin the word Erogare was specially applied to paying out money from the public treasury3. Supererogare, therefore, would denote to pay out more than is needed, and as an ecclesiastical expression it meant to pay out or give to God more than one was bound to do.

iv. Origin of the doctrine. The idea of works of supererogation gradually grew up in the Church, and was due to three chief causes : —

(a) The admiration of the early Church for martyrs

and martyrdom ; (/3) The belief in the superior merits of the celibate

life ;

(7) The increasing respect paid in the Middle Ages to all kinds of ascetic practices.

Out of these causes arose the doctrine that there is a difference between the precepts of Christ, which are of universal obligation, and counsels of perfection, which were enjoined on those who could receive them. Such moral

[…]

1553, and was altered to “impiety” 3 Comp. Cic. 2 Verr. iii. 71. 165,

in 1563. ” Pecunia publica ex aerario erogata”;

[…]

Sukxu (rot. ” Curam illius habe, et

I85

and religious duties, as were equally needful for all, be- longed to the first class, while martyrdom, celibacy, virginity, and voluntary poverty belonged to the second1. These latter, being voluntary works, were called “works of supererogation,” and the excess of merit thus attained by the saints formed part of the treasury at the disposal of the Church for the benefit of her members”.

v. Certain Passages of Scripture are regarded as supporting the idea of works of supererogation.

(a) Such is the counsel given by our Lord to the rich young ruler3, who approached Him with the question Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? To him our Lord replied Keep the Commandments, and referred him to those of the second Table. Then, when the young man answered that he had kept all these4, and enquired What lack I yetf he re- ceived the reply, One thing thou laekest5 ; go,

2 We have an illustration of this in the Libellatici of the early Church, who obtained tickets from martyrs and confessors qualifying them for restoration to the Church, inasmuch as the superior merits of these sufferers for the Faith made up for their own deficiencies. We have such a letter preserved in the correspondence of Cyprian, Epp. xxiii. Such a con- ception aided in the development of the use of Indulgences, which were granted out of the treasure of the Church, of which, while one part was her dower as “the bride of Christ,” the other part was Works of Super- erogation. Comp. Creighton, Hist, of

the Papacy, v. pp. 59 sqq. The development of -the doctrine of a thesaurus meritorum or a thesaurus su- pererogationis perfectorum belongs to Alexander of Hales. Summa, Pars iv., Quasst. 23, Art. 2, membr. 5.

3 Matt. xix. 16 — 30; Mark x. 17 — 31; Lukexviii. 18 — 30. Hewasyoung (Matt. xix. 22), of great wealth, and an apxuv (Luke xviii. 18), or ruler of a local synagogue, as was Jairus.

4 We are told that when the Angel of death came to fetch the Rabbi Chanina, he said, ” Go and fetch me the Book of the Law, and see ■whether there be anything in it which I have not kept.” Farrar’s Life of Christ, ii. 161, n.

6 ” The work to be done is to love. Jesus quotes the second Table, as bearing on works of a more external and palpable kind, and consequently more like one of those which the

sell whatsoever tlwu hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow Me (Mark x. 211). Upon this it is observed that we have here not a general com- mand but a counsel of perfection2, and if the young man had adopted it, he would have done more than his duty, and performed a work of supererogation3. But it is plain that the answer was made to the young man’s question What lack I yet? and our Lord told him what he lacked. Now if he lacked anything, it is plain that the supplying of that deficiency could not amount to a work of supererogation, but simply of duty and obligation, and it could not qualify him for a supereminent degree of glory4.

(b) Again, arguments are drawn from certain words of our Lord respecting marriage and celibacy in such passages as Matt. xix. 10 — 12, and

young man expected to be mentioned. This answer of Jesus is earnest ; for to love is to live!” Godet on Luke xviii. 20.

1 Or as S. Matthew records, Ei 0Aeis r<?\eio5 chat = if thou art re- solved to be perfect.

2 ” Undoubtedly, according to the view of Jesus, man cannot do more or better than fulfil the Law (Matt. v. 17, 48). Only the Law must be obeyed not in the letter but in the spirit. The perfection to which Jesus called the young man is not the ful- filling of law superior to the Law strictly so called, but the real fulfilling, in opposition to that external, literal fulfilling which the young man already had. This one thing which he lacks is the spirit of the Law, that is love ready to give everything : this is the whole of the Law (Luke vi.).” Godet on Luke xviii. 21.

3 Comp.S. Aug. deSancta Virgini- tate, cp. 30 ; ” Non enim sicut Non marhaberis, non occides, ita dici potest, non nubes. 111a exiguntur, ista offer- untur. Si fiunt ista, laudantur ; nisi fiunt ilia, damnantur. In illis Uominus debitum imperat vobis ; in his autem si quid amplius supcrcrogaveritis, in redeundo reddit vobis.”

4 This is further illustrated by the sequel, for when the young man heard our Lord’s reply his countenance fell at the saying and, we are told, he went aivay sorrowful (Mark x. 22, R.V.), and our Lord commenting on his con- duct said, It is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven (Matt. xix. 23). It was unfitness for the kingdom of heaven, not unfitness for the highest place therein, which the young ruler displayed, when he failed to sell all that he had and give to the poor.

of S. Paul in I Cor. vii. 1—7, 25 — 40. But it is to be observed that, while both our Lord and S. Paul regard the celibate life and abstinence from marriage as deserving of all commendation in certain cases and for certain definite ends, where men are able to receive it1 (Matt. xix. n), yet in other places the highest praise is bestowed upon the holy estate of matrimony. And while it is admitted that it is well to adopt the celibate life, if men wish to avoid entangling themselves with earthly ties and worldly busi- ness, yet nowhere is any hint dropped that by such abstinence from wedlock men do more than win their own salvation, or that celibacy has in itself a special merit, or can confer a higher place in heaven, vi. The Teaching of the Article. Respecting this doctrine of Works of Supererogation the Article lays down (1) that it “cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety,” and (2) that it plainly contradicts the clear de- claration of Christ Himself. It cannot be taught without arrogancy, for it is utterly opposed to the humility, which Christ requires of all His disciples, and it cannot be taught without impiety, for it tends to detract from the all- sufficient merits of His atoning Sacrifice. Moreover it plainly contradicts His own words, for He expressly declared to His Apostles, When ye shall have done all the things that are commanded you, say, We are tmprofitable servants; we have done that which it was our duty to do (Luke xvii. io)2.

[…]

tov (Malt. xix. ir). All cannot comp. John ii. 6 ; xxi. 25. receive, all are not capable of holding, 2 ” Unprofitable servants ! . What

i.e. of observing rbv \6yov tovtov, but unprofitable servants can we re-

this precept, viz. about celibacy, but pute ourselves, when we measure our

vii. Conclusion. If, then, as we have seen, it is the teaching of Revelation that the taint of original sin remains even “in them that are regenerated,” and thus vitiates any claim that may be set up for good works done by us apart from Grace, it is plain a fortiori that no amount of human obedience can render unto God more than He may demand, or more than man of his bounden duty is required to offer. We need not, indeed, hesitate to believe that special acts of self-renunciation, special acts of charity, undertaken for the love of God, may by God’s Grace be attended with special rewards in the life to come1. But the idea that a man can attain such a degree of supereminent merit that the excess can be made available for others, is unsupported by any teaching in Holy Scripture. We cannot conceive of any, even the most eminent saint, attaining to a higher degree of sanctity than is set forth by our Lord, not as a counsel of perfection, but as a precept for daily life, Ye therefore shall be perfect2, as your heavenly Father is perfect (Matt. v. 48).

very best performances with that which God requires of us : when we call to mind that nothing short of the perfec- tion of God is the standard whereby we shall be measured, and that in Him lie hidden not only all possible perfections that are or ever have been in any of His creatures, but that beyond that there is the inscrutable perfection which is His own attri- bute…Unprofitable servants ! What but unprofitable, in view of the truth that God needs not one of us, that He is in Himself complete in all things, and that the addition or subtraction of a universe adds nothing to, takes nothing from His perfection.” Bp Forbes On the Articles, pp. 1J4, 215.

\ We may note in this connection the inherent value of sacrifice. “The

good to be sought is not made up of pleasures, nor the evil to be avoided made up of pains. The end for the which sacrifice is demanded is one which in the sacrifice itself is in some measure attained … the individual’s sacrifice of an inclination, harmless or even in its way laudable, for the sake of a higher good, is itself already in some measure an attainment of the higher good.” Green, Pruleg. Eth., p. 420, Ed. 1884.

2 The future here has an impera- tive force, IceaOe TtXeioi. The latter word is limited by the preceding words = perfect in respect of love, i.e. ” love your enemies as well as your neighbours,” because your Father, being perfect in respect of love, doeth this.

Notes

• ” Concilium perfections vocamus opus bonum, a Christo nobis non impe- ratum sed demonstratum, non manda- tumsedconimendatum.” Bellarm. De Monachis, Bk ii. cap. vii. ; S. Thomas Aquin. Summa, Pt. ii. 108, Art. iv.