CHAPTER X – The Merit of Christ
CHAPTER X – The Merit of Christ Of the merit of Christ, with arguments from there.
ARGUMENT XIV. Fourth: the Merit ascribed to Christ is not Universal.
180 ascribed to the death of Christ is merit, or that worth and value of his death by which he purchased and procured for us all those good things which we find in the Scripture for his death, to be bestowed upon us.,
I will not speak much of this, having considered it under the notion of impetration already. I will only add a few observations proper to that particular of the controversy which we have in hand. The word "merit" is not found at all in the New Testament, nor in any translation of the original that I have seen. The vulgar Latin reads promeretur once, in Heb. 13:16; and the Rheimists, to preserve the sound, have rendered it "promerited."
But these words in both languages are uncouth and barbarous. Besides that, they do not in any way correspond to euaresteo (NT:2100), which is the word in the original. It gives no color to merit, whether by name or aspect.
A fourth thing 181 No, I suppose it will prove a difficult thing to find any one word, in either of the languages in which the holy Scripture was written, that properly and immediately signifies merit in its first native importance.
So we will not trouble ourselves about the name if what is intended by it is made apparent. And it is apparent in both the Old and New Testaments, such as Isa. 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. So too in Heb. 9:12: "Obtaining eternal redemption by his blood." This is as much as we intend to signify by the merit of Christ. The word which comes nearest in meaning is found in Acts 20:28, peripoieo (NT:4046), "Purchased with his own blood;" purchase and impetration, merit and acquisition, which are equivalent terms in this business. Peripoieo is used in a number of other passages, such as 1Thes. 5:9; Eph. 1:14; and 1Pet 2:9. Now, what we understand by this word is performing an action by which the thing aimed at by the agent is due him, according to the equity and equality required in justice. For example, "To the one who works, the reward is not reckoned of grace, but of debt," Rom.
4:4. From what was said before, it is apparent that such a merit attends the death of Christ. The weight of laboriously proving it is not imposed on us by our adversaries, who seem to acknowledge it no less themselves. So we may take it for granted (until our adversaries close ranks with the Socinians in this as well).
Christ then, by his death, merited and purchased for all those for whom he died, all those things which the Scripture assigns to the fruits and effects of his death. These are the things purchased and merited by his bloodshedding and death. These may be grouped in two parts:
182 such as, First, those which are privative 1. Deliverence from the hand of our enemies, Luke 1:74; from the wrath to come, 1Thes. 1:10.
2. The destruction and abolition of death in his power, Heb. 2:14; 3. Of the works of the devil, 1Jn. 3:8.
4. Deliverence from the curse of the law, Gal. 3:13; 5. From our vain life, 1Pet. 1:18; 6. From the present evil world, Gal. 1:4;
7. From the earth, and from among men, Rev. 14:3,4.
8. Purging of our sins, Heb. 1:3, Secondly, positive, such as, 1. Reconciliation with God, Rom. 5:10; Eph. 2:16; Col. 1:20.
2. Appeasing or atoning of God by propitiation, Rom. 3:25; 1Jn. 2:2.
3. Peacemaking, Eph. 2:14.
4. Salvation, Matt. 1:21.
By his death, our Savior has merited and purchased all these for all those for whom he died. That is, he has so procured them from his Father that, with regard to that merit, and according to the equity of justice, they ought to be bestowed on those for whom they were purchased and procured. It was absolutely of free grace that God would send Jesus Christ to die for anyone; it was of free grace for whom he would send him to die; it is of free grace that the good things procured by his death should be bestowed on any
person. But considering his own appointment and constitution, it is of debt with regard to Jesus Christ that by his death he should merit and procure grace and glory for those for whom he died, and that these things be communicated to them. Now, what is thus merited, is to be bestowed out of debt. We do not say that it may be bestowed, but that it ought to be bestowed, and it is injustice if it is not.
Having said this little of the nature of merit, and of the merit of Christ, and of what his death procured for those in whose stead he died, it will quickly be apparent how irreconcilable general ransom is with these things. To demonstration this, we need only propose this one question, namely, "If Christ has merited grace and glory for all those for whom he died, and if he died for all, then how can it come to pass that these things are not communicated to and bestowed upon all?" Is the defect in the merit of Christ, or in the justice of God? How vain it is to say that these things are not bestowed upon us absolutely, but only upon condition. The very condition itself is also merited and procured, as Eph. 1:3-4,
183 and Phil.
1:29, 184 which has been already declared.
ARGUMENT XV. Fifth: Specific phrases preclude Universal Redemption.
The very phrases "dying for us," "bearing our sins," being our "surety," and the like, by which the death of Christ for us is expressed, cannot be reconciled with the payment of a ransom for all. To die for another is, in Scripture, to die in that other's stead so that he might go free. Judah begged his brother Joseph to accept him for a bondman instead of Benjamin so that Benjamin might be set free, Gen. 44:33. That was to make good the engagement in which he stood bound to his father to be a surety for Benjamin (Gen. 43:9). The one who is surety for another (as Christ was for us, Heb. 7:22), undergoes the danger so that the other may be delivered from it. So David, wishing that he had died for his son Absalom, 2Sam.
18:33, doubtless intended a commutation, substituting his life for Absalom's so that he might have lived. Also in Rom. 5:7, Paul intimates the same thing, supposing that such a thing might be found among men, that one person should die for another. He was no doubt alluding to the Decii,
Menoeceus, Euryalus, and such others, whom we find mentioned in the
stories of the heathen. They voluntarily cast themselves into death to deliver their country or friends, thus allowing others to continue their liberty and life, which they were due to lose. Instead, they took the loss upon themselves, to whom it was not directly due. And this plainly is the meaning of that phrase, "Christ died for us." That is, in undergoing death there was a subrogation of his person in the place and stead of ours.
Some, indeed, object that where the word huper (NT:5228 "for") is used in this phrase, as in Heb. 2:9, "That by the grace of God he should taste death for every man," only the good and profit of those for whom he died is intended. It does not require any commutation. But I see no reason why this exception should prevail, for the same preposition is used in the same way in other cases where it does confessedly intimate a commutation, such as Rom. 9:3. There Paul affirms that he "could wish himself accursed from Christ, for his brethren," that is, in their stead so that they might be united to him. So also, 2Cor. 5:20, "We are ambassadors for Christ… in Christ's stead." In 1Cor. 1:13 he asks and strongly denies, "Was Paul crucified for you?" plainly showing that the word huper does argue a commutation or change. It refers to crucifying Christ for his church. Paul does not mean the good of those for whom he died, for plainly Paul might have been crucified for the good of the church. But instead of that, he abhors the least thought of it. But concerning the word anti, which is also used, there is no doubt or exception. It always signifies a commutation and change, whether it is applied to things or persons. Luke 11:11, "A serpent instead of a fish;"
Matt. 5:38, "An eye for an eye;" Heb. 12:16, "for a morsel of meat"; and for persons, Archelaus is said to reign "instead of his father," Matt. 2:22.
Now, this word is used of the death of our Savior, Matt. 20:28, "The Son of man came to give his life a ransom for many." These words are repeated in Mark 10:45. That is, he gave his life a ransom in the stead of the lives of many. Plainly, Christ is dying for us as a surety (Heb. 7:22), and thereby he is "bearing our sins in his own body," 1Pet. 2:24. He was being made a curse for us, and was undergoing death, punishment, curse, and wrath not only for our good, but directly in our stead. It is a commutation and subrogation of his person in our place, being allowed and accepted by God.
This being cleared, I demand, First, did Christ die thus for all? That is, did he die in the stead of all so that his person was substituted in place of theirs? Did he die for Cain and
Pharaoh and the rest who long before his death were under the power of the second death, never to be delivered?
Secondly, is it justice that any of those in whose stead Christ died, bearing their iniquities, should themselves also die and bear their own sins to eternity?
Thirdly, what rule or example of equity is there, when the surety has answered and made complete satisfaction of what was required in the obligation in which he was a surety, that those for whom he was a surety would afterwards be proceeded against?
Fourthly, did Christ hang upon the cross in the place of reprobates?
Fifthly, did he undergo 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 will only add this: to assert that Christ died for all men is the readiest way to prove that he died for no man, in the sense that Christians have believed he died for men till now. It rushes poor souls into the pit of Socinian blasphemies.