Chapter 10
A fourth thing ascribed to the death of Christ is merit — or that worth and value of his death whereby he purchased and procured for those for whom he died all those good things which scripture assigns as the fruits and effects of his death. Of this much need not be said, having already considered the thing itself under the notion of impetration. The word 'merit' is not found in the New Testament in any translation I have seen from the original. But the thing itself intended by that word is evident in both testaments. Isaiah 53:5: 'The chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed' — the procurement of our peace and healing was the merit of his chastisement and stripes. Hebrews 9:12: 'obtaining by his blood eternal redemption' is as much as we intend by the merit of Christ. The nearest word to it in meaning is found in Acts 20:28: 'purchased with his own blood' — purchase and merit, impetration and acquisition being equivalent terms in this matter. What we understand by merit is the performance of such an action whereby the thing aimed at by the agent is due to him according to the equity and equality required in justice: 'To him that works, the reward is reckoned not of grace but of debt' (Romans 4:4). That such merit attends the death of Christ is apparent from what was said before, and is not contested by our adversaries. Christ then by his death merited and purchased for all those for whom he died all those things which scripture assigns as the fruits and effects of his death. These may be referred to two heads: first, privative — deliverance from the hands of our enemies (Luke 1:74), from the wrath to come (1 Thessalonians 1), from death in its power (Hebrews 2:14), from the works of the devil (1 John 3:8), from the curse of the law (Galatians 3:13), from vain conduct (1 Peter 1:18), from the present evil world (Galatians 1:4), and purging of our sins (Hebrews 1:3); second, positive — reconciliation with God (Romans 5:10; Ephesians 2:16; Colossians 2:20), appeasing of God by propitiation (Romans 3:25; 1 John 2:2), peace-making (Ephesians 2:14), and salvation (Matthew 1:21). All these our Savior by his death merited and purchased for all those for whom he died — so procured them of his Father that they ought in respect of that merit, according to the equity of justice, to be bestowed on them for whom they were procured. It was absolutely of free grace in God that he sent Jesus Christ to die for any and for whom he sent him to die; it is of free grace that the good things procured by his death are bestowed on any person in respect of the persons on whom they are bestowed. But considering his own appointment and constitution — that Jesus Christ by his death should merit and procure grace and glory for those for whom he died — it is of debt in respect of Christ that these things be communicated to them; and not only that they may be, but that they ought to be, and it is injustice if they are not. Having said this of the nature of the merit of Christ, it quickly appears how irreconcilable the general ransom is with it. For if Christ has merited grace and glory for all those for whom he died, and if he died for all, how is it that these things are not communicated and bestowed upon all? Is the defect in the merit of Christ, or in the justice of God? How vain is it to object that these things are not bestowed absolutely but upon condition and were so procured — seeing that the very condition itself is also merited and procured (Ephesians 1:3-4; Philippians 1:29), as has already been declared.
Fifth, the very phrases of 'dying for us,' 'bearing our sins,' 'being our surety,' and the like, whereby the death of Christ for us is expressed, will not stand with the payment of a ransom for all. To die for another is in scripture to die in that other's stead so that the other might go free — as Judah entreated his brother Joseph to accept him as a bondservant in place of Benjamin that Benjamin might be set at liberty (Genesis 44:33), Judah thereby making good the engagement wherein he stood bound to his father as surety for him. He who is surety for another (as Christ was for us, Hebrews 7:22) is to undergo the danger that the other might be delivered. So David, wishing he had died for his son Absalom (2 Samuel 18:33), intended a commutation and substitution of his life for Absalom's, so that Absalom might have lived. Paul also intimates the same in Romans 5:7, supposing that such a thing might be found among people, that one should die for another — alluding to those who voluntarily gave themselves up to death for the deliverance of their country or friends, thereby continuing the liberty and freedom from death of those who were to undergo it. This plainly is the meaning of the phrase 'Christ died for us' — that in the undergoing of death there was a substitution of his person in the room and stead of ours. Some indeed object that where the Greek preposition meaning 'for the benefit of' is used, as in Hebrews 2:9 ('that by the grace of God he should taste death for every man'), it intends only the good and profit of those for whom he died, not enforcing the necessity of any commutation. But this exception has little force, for the same preposition used in a similar construction in other places does confessedly indicate a commutation — as Romans 9:3, where Paul says he could wish himself accursed from Christ for his brethren, that is in their stead. And concerning the Greek word 'anti' which is also used, there is no doubt: it always signifies a commutation and exchange, whether applied to things or persons — as 'a serpent instead of a fish' (Luke 11:11), 'an eye for an eye' (Matthew 5:38), and Archelaus is said to reign in the stead of his father (Matthew 2:22). This word is used of the death of our Savior in Matthew 20:28: 'The Son of man came to give his life a ransom for many' — that is, in the stead of many. So that plainly, Christ dying for us as a surety (Hebrews 7:22) and thereby bearing our sins in his own body (1 Peter 2:24), being made a curse for us, was an undergoing of death, punishment, curse, and wrath — not only for our good but directly in our stead. A commutation and substitution of his person in the room and place of ours was allowed and accepted by God. This being established, I demand: first, whether Christ died thus for all — that is, whether he died in the room and stead of all, his person substituted in the room of theirs; as, whether he died in the stead of Cain and Pharaoh and the rest who long before his death were under the power of the second death, never to be delivered? Second, whether it is justice that those, or any of them, in whose stead Christ died bearing their iniquities, should themselves also die and bear their own sins to eternity? Third, what rule of equity or example is there for the surety, having answered and made satisfaction to the uttermost of what was required in the obligation, to have those for whom he was surety afterward proceeded against? Fourth, whether Christ hung upon the cross in the room or stead of reprobates? Fifth, whether he underwent all that was due to those for whom he died? If not, how could he be said to die in their stead? If so, why are they not all delivered? I shall add no more but this: to affirm that Christ died for all people is the readiest way to prove that he died for no person in the sense Christians have hitherto believed, and to plunge poor souls into the depths of Socinian blasphemy.
A fourth thing attributed to Christ's death is merit — that worth and value of His death by which He purchased and obtained for those for whom He died all the good things Scripture assigns as the fruits and effects of His death. Much need not be said about this, since we have already considered the reality itself under the idea of obtaining. The word 'merit' does not appear in the New Testament in any translation I have seen of the original. But the reality the word points to is evident in both testaments. Isaiah 53:5: 'The punishment that brought us peace was on Him, and by His wounds we are healed' — the securing of our peace and healing was the merit of His punishment and wounds. Hebrews 9:12: 'having obtained eternal redemption' through His blood says essentially what we mean by Christ's merit. The nearest equivalent word is found in Acts 20:28: 'purchased with His own blood' — purchase and merit, obtaining and acquiring being equivalent terms in this matter. What we mean by merit is the performance of such an action that the intended result is justly due to the agent, according to the fairness and equality required in justice: 'Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due' (Romans 4:4). That such merit attaches to Christ's death is clear from what was said earlier and is not disputed by our opponents. Christ by His death therefore merited and purchased for all those for whom He died all those things Scripture assigns as the fruits and effects of His death. These may be grouped under two headings: first, what He delivered from — freedom from the hands of our enemies (Luke 1:74), from the coming wrath (1 Thessalonians 1), from death's power (Hebrews 2:14), from the works of the devil (1 John 3:8), from the curse of the law (Galatians 3:13), from empty conduct (1 Peter 1:18), from the present evil age (Galatians 1:4), and the purging of our sins (Hebrews 1:3); second, what He secured — reconciliation with God (Romans 5:10; Ephesians 2:16; Colossians 2:20), the appeasing of God through propitiation (Romans 3:25; 1 John 2:2), peacemaking (Ephesians 2:14), and salvation (Matthew 1:21). All these our Savior by His death merited and purchased for all those for whom He died — so procuring them from His Father that they ought, in view of that merit and according to the fairness of justice, to be bestowed on those for whom they were procured. It was entirely by free grace that God sent Jesus Christ to die for any, and for whom He sent Him to die; it is by free grace that the good things procured by His death are given to any person in terms of those on whom they are bestowed. But considering His own appointment and arrangement — that Jesus Christ by His death should merit and procure grace and glory for those for whom He died — it is a matter of justice with respect to Christ that these things be communicated to them; not merely that they may be, but that they ought to be, and it is injustice if they are not. Having said this about the nature of Christ's merit, it quickly becomes apparent how incompatible the general ransom is with it. For if Christ merited grace and glory for all those for whom He died, and if He died for all, how is it that these things are not communicated and given to all? Is the deficiency in the merit of Christ, or in the justice of God? How pointless it is to object that these things are not given absolutely but conditionally, and were so procured — when the very condition itself has also been merited and procured (Ephesians 1:3-4; Philippians 1:29), as has already been shown.
Fifth, the very phrases 'dying for us,' 'bearing our sins,' 'being our surety,' and the like, by which Christ's death for us is expressed, are incompatible with payment of a ransom for all. To die for another in Scripture is to die in that person's place so that the other might go free — as Judah entreated his brother Joseph to take him as a slave in place of Benjamin so that Benjamin might be released (Genesis 44:33), Judah thereby honoring the commitment by which he had pledged himself to his father as Benjamin's surety. A surety for another (as Christ was for us, Hebrews 7:22) must bear the danger so that the other might be delivered. So David, wishing he had died for his son Absalom (2 Samuel 18:33), meant an exchange of his life for Absalom's, so that Absalom might have lived. Paul suggests the same in Romans 5:7, noting what might theoretically happen among people — that someone would die for another — alluding to those who voluntarily gave themselves to death for their country or friends, thereby preserving the life of those who would otherwise have died. This plainly is the meaning of 'Christ died for us' — that in undergoing death there was a substitution of His person in the place of ours. Some object that where the Greek preposition meaning 'for the benefit of' is used, as in Hebrews 2:9 ('so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone'), it indicates only benefit to those for whom He died, not requiring any substitution. But this objection carries little force, for the same preposition used in a similar construction elsewhere clearly does imply substitution — as in Romans 9:3, where Paul says he could wish himself accursed from Christ for his brothers, meaning in their place. And regarding the Greek word 'anti' also used, there is no doubt: it always signifies a substitution and exchange, whether applied to things or persons — as 'a serpent instead of a fish' (Luke 11:11), 'an eye for an eye' (Matthew 5:38), and Archelaus is said to reign in the place of his father (Matthew 2:22). This word is used of our Savior's death in Matthew 20:28: 'The Son of Man came to give His life a ransom for many' — that is, in the place of many. So plainly, Christ dying for us as a surety (Hebrews 7:22) and thereby bearing our sins in His own body (1 Peter 2:24), being made a curse for us, was an undergoing of death, punishment, curse, and wrath — not only for our benefit but directly in our place. A substitution of His person in the room and place of ours was permitted and accepted by God. With this established, I ask: first, did Christ die in this way for all — that is, did He die in the place and stead of all, His person substituted in theirs? For example, did He die in the place of Cain and Pharaoh and the rest who long before His death were under the power of eternal death, never to be delivered? Second, is it just that those — any of them — in whose place Christ died bearing their sins, should themselves also die and bear their own sins for eternity? Third, what principle of equity or precedent is there for a surety, having fully answered and satisfied every requirement of the obligation, to have those for whom he was surety afterward pursued again? Fourth, did Christ hang on the cross in the place of the reprobate? Fifth, did He undergo everything due to those for whom He died? If not, how can He be said to have died in their place? If so, why are they not all delivered? I will add only this: to claim that Christ died for all people is the surest way to prove that He died for no one in the sense Christians have always believed, and to push poor souls into the depths of Socinian error.
