Institutes of the Christian Religion (Vol. 2 of 2)
XIII. If these things are true, surely no works of ours can
render us acceptable to God; nor can the actions themselves
be pleasing to him, any otherwise than as a man, who is
covered with the righteousness of Christ, pleases God and
obtains the remission of his sins. For God has not promised
eternal life as a reward of certain works; he only declares,
that “he that doeth these things shall live,”[42]
denouncing,
on the contrary, that memorable curse against all who continue
not in the observance of every one of his commands.[43]
This
abundantly refutes the erroneous notion of a partial righteousness,
since no other righteousness is admitted into heaven but
an entire observance of the law. Nor is there any more solidity
in their pretence of a sufficient compensation for imperfections
by works of supererogation. For are they not by this perpetually
recurring to the subterfuge, from which they have already
been driven, that the partial observance of the law constitutes,
as far as it goes, a righteousness of works? They unblushingly
assume as granted, what no man of sound judgment will
concede. The Lord frequently declares, that he acknowledges
no righteousness of works, except in a perfect obedience to his
law. What presumption is it for us, who are destitute of this,
in order that we may not appear to be despoiled of all our
glory, or, in other words, to submit entirely to the Lord—what
presumption is it for us to boast of I know not what fragments
of a few actions, and to endeavour to supply deficiencies by
other satisfactions! Satisfactions have already been so completely
demolished, that they ought not to occupy even a
transient thought. I only remark, that those who trifle in this
manner, do not consider what an execrable thing sin is in the sight
of God; for indeed they ought to know, that all the righteousness
of all mankind, accumulated in one mass, is insufficient to
compensate for a single sin. We see that man on account of
one offence was rejected and abandoned by God, so that he
lost all means of regaining salvation.[44]
They are deprived,
therefore, of the power of satisfaction, with which, however
they flatter themselves, they will certainly never be able to
render a satisfaction to God, to whom nothing will be pleasing
or acceptable that proceeds from his enemies. Now, his enemies
are all those to whom he determines to impute sin. Our
sins, therefore, must be covered and forgiven, before the Lord
can regard any of our works. Whence it follows that the
remission of sins is absolutely gratuitous, and that it is wickedly
blasphemed by those who obtrude any satisfactions. Let
us, therefore, after the example of the apostle, “forgetting those
things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things
which are before, press toward the mark for the prize of our
high calling.”[45]
XIV. But how is the pretence of works of supererogation
consistent with this injunction—“When ye shall have done
all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable
servants; we have done that which was our duty to
do?”[46]
This direction does not inculcate an act of simulation
or falsehood, but a decision in our mind respecting that
of which we are certain. The Lord, therefore, commands us
sincerely to think and consider with ourselves, that our services
to him are none of them gratuitous, but merely the performance
of indispensable duties; and that justly; for we are servants
under such numerous obligations as we could never discharge;
even though all our thoughts and all our members were devoted
to the duties of the law. In saying, therefore, “When ye shall
have done all those things which are commanded,” he supposes
a case of one man having attained to a degree of righteousness
beyond what is attained by all the men in the world. How,
then, while every one of us is at the greatest distance from this
point, can we presume to glory that we have completely attained
to that perfect standard? Nor can any one reasonably object,
that there is nothing to prevent his efforts from going beyond
his necessary obligations, who in any respect fails of doing the
duty incumbent on him. For we must acknowledge, that we
cannot imagine any thing pertaining either to the service of
God or to the love of our neighbour, which is not comprehended
in the Divine law. But if it is a part of the law, let us not
boast of voluntary liberality, where we are bound by necessity.
XV. It is irrelevant to this subject, to allege the boasting
of Paul,[47]
that among the Corinthians he voluntarily receded
from what, if he had chosen, he might have claimed as his
right, and not only did what was incumbent on him to do,
but afforded them his gratuitous services beyond the requisitions
of duty. They ought to attend to the reason there assigned,
that he acted thus, “lest he should hinder the gospel
of Christ.”[48]
For wicked and fraudulent teachers recommended
themselves by this stratagem of liberality, by which
they endeavoured, both to conciliate a favourable reception to
their own pernicious dogmas, and to fix an odium on the gospel;
so that Paul was necessitated either to endanger the doctrine
of Christ, or to oppose these artifices. Now, if it be a
matter of indifference to a Christian to incur an offence when
he may avoid it, I confess that the apostle performed for the
Lord a work of supererogation; but if this was justly required
of a prudent minister of the gospel, I maintain that he did
what was his duty to do. Even if no such reason appeared,
yet the observation of Chrysostom is always true—that all that
we have is on the same tenure as the possessions of slaves,
which the law pronounces to be the property of their masters.
And Christ has clearly delivered the same truth in the parable,
where he inquires whether we thank a servant, when he returns
home in the evening, after the various labours of the
day.[49]
But it is possible that he may have laboured with
greater diligence than we had ventured to require. This may
be granted; yet he has done no more than, by the condition
of servitude, he was under an obligation to do; since he belongs
to us, with all the ability he has. I say nothing of the
nature of the supererogations which these men wish to boast
of before God; for they are contemptible trifles, which he has
never commanded, which he does not approve, nor, when they
render up their account to him, will he accept them. We
cannot admit that there are any works of supererogation, except
such as those of which it is said by the prophet, “Who
hath required this at your hand?”[50]
But let them remember
the language of another passage respecting these things:
“Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread?
and your labour for that which satisfieth not?”[51]
It is easy,
indeed, for these idle doctors to dispute concerning these things
in easy chairs; but when the Judge of all shall ascend the
judgment seat, all such empty notions must vanish away.
The object of our inquiries ought to be, what plea we may
bring forward with confidence at his tribunal, not what we can
invent in schools and cloisters.
