in Jesus Christ, who in his life on earth "went about doing good," prompts man to follow him in all good works, and these good works perfect the faith that prompts the action. "Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?" (James 2. 22.) Man is justified by faith alone, but this faith must have its correspondent course of action as its counterpart, and is thus made complete or perfect. Good works following faith do not add to its saving power, but they do attest the saving quality of the faith in the heart.

The teaching of this Article has been well paraphrased by Dr. Waterland: "Take we due care so to maintain the doctrine of faith as not to exclude the necessity of good works, and so to maintain good works as not to exclude the necessity of Christ's atonement, or the free grace of God. Take we care to perform all evangelical duties to the utmost of our power, aided by God's Spirit; and when we have so done, say that we are unprofitable servants, having no strict claim to a reward, but yet looking for one and accepting it as a favor, not challenging it as due in any right of our own; due only upon free promise, and that promise made, not in consideration of any deserts of ours, but in and through the alone merits, active and passive, of Jesus Christ our Lord."

1 Summary View, p. 38.

ARTICLE XI

OF WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION

Voluntary works-besides, over, and above God's commandments—which are called works of supererogation, cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety. For by them men do declare that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for his sake than of bounden duty is required: whereas Christ saith plainly, When ye have done all that is commanded of you, say, We are unprofitable servants.

I. THE ORIGIN

This Article was composed by the English Reformers in 1553. In its original form the word "iniquity" was employed instead of "impiety." The latter word was substituted in the reign of Elizabeth. It remained without further change, and was copied entire by Wesley.

II. THE AIM

The purpose of the Article is the condemnation of the doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning works of supererogation. The word "supererogation" is formed from a Latin word used in the Vulgate version of the parable of the good Samaritan: "Whatsoever thou spendest more (supererogaveris), when I come again, I will repay thee" (Luke 10. 35). By works of supererogation are meant voluntary works performed over and above those required by God's law. These works not required by the precepts of the gospel were presumed to constitute an excess of merit.

The doctrine of supererogation seems to have been

founded upon a false conception of the tenet of the communion of saints: that the merit of good works done by one Christian belongs to the whole body of the faithful.

It is traced back to the early Christian Church as having its origin in the special reverence with which a celibate life was regarded. Paul said that "concerning virgins" he had "no commandment of the Lord," but he gives his "judgment," and advises that they remain single. From this grew the distinction which was later made between "precepts," which all were bound to obey, and "counsels," which though advisable it was not necessary for a person to follow. It was then taught that it was possible for one to do more than was required of him by God, and special merit became attached to virginity and to a monastic life. Two kinds of life became recognized: the ordinary working business life in which men married and amassed fortunes, but were bound to keep the commandments of God; and the other an extraordinary life of devotion in which the "counsels of perfection" were carried out and monastic vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience were taken.

According to the theology of the Church of Rome, after sin is pardoned there remains always a certain amount of temporal penalty still to be paid here or in purgatory; and the merit laid up by the specially faithful can be applied to secure the remission of the penalty lodged against the soul of the less fortunate or the less faithful. Extraordinary acts of devotion, patient suffering in times of persecution, great liberality in the bestowment of wealth for the interests of the Church, were supposed to add to an individual's merit. The excessive sufferings of the noble army of martyrs and confessors made a vast accumulation of merit, and these

added to the infinite merit of Christ formed a rich treasure which served as the basis of indulgences, a source to be drawn upon for the relief of the still ensnared members of Christ's body, the Church.

When this idea of a treasury of merit was established as a doctrine of the Church it was but an easy step to the sale of indulgences for money. This deposit of superabundant good works, it was held by the Schoolmen of the thirteenth century, "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."1

In the early stages of the English Reformation the doctrine of supererogation found some favor. The principle was affirmed in the book entitled The Institution of a Christian Man, issued in 1537: "I believe that whatsoever spiritual gift or treasure is given by God unto any part or member of this mystical body of Christ, although the same be given particularly unto this member, and not unto another, yet the fruit and merit thereof shall, by reason of that incomprehensible union and bond of charity which is between them, redound necessarily unto the profit, edifying, and increase in Christ's body of all other members particularly." The Council of Trent decreed nothing on the subject, but the Tridentine Catechism is in accord with the quotation.

At the time of the Reformation, however, the practice of the sale of indulgences had grown to such an extent as to become a dreadful scandal, and was one of the great abominations that led to the Reform movement. In this way the doctrine of supererogation was brought under the condemnation of the Reformers.

1 Gibson on the Articles, p. 434.

III. THE EXPOSITION

Voluntary works-besides, over, and above God's commandments-which are called works of supererogation.

As the doctrine was taught by the Church, her theologians were in duty bound to give some explanation and defense of it. The task was a hard one. The Scripture foundations usually cited are the incident of the rich young ruler mentioned in Matt. 19. 16-22, and the teaching of Christ and Saint Paul on marriage and virginity. The rich young man had kept the commandments and was fit for heaven. He had kept the "precepts," and Jesus gave him words of "counsel": "Sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven." If he had obeyed the words of "counsel" he would have performed a work of supererogation, and thereby have laid up a treasure in heaven. This is a forced exegesis to support a false theory.

Cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety.

The theory of works of supererogation is based upon a wrong conception of the nature of sin, and of man's relations to God. Sin is deadly and admits of no compromise. The virtue of one saint cannot atone for the sin of another. There is no remedy for sin but the atonement of Christ, and where that is available nothing else is needed. The work of Christ is complete. If sin is pardoned and its guilt washed away nothing remains for purgatorial fires to effect.

For by them men do declare that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for his sake than of bounden duty is required.

The commandments of God are "exceeding broad" (Psa. 119. 96). This is especially true of his claims upon