The Sufferings of Christ, Part 1 · Chapter 11
CHAP. XI. The Vindication of Gal. 3.13.
Gal. 3.13. Chriſt hath redeemed us from the curſe of the Law, being made a curſe for us, as it is written, Curſed is every one that hangs upon a tree.
Dialogu. IN this Text the Apoſtle speaks of a twofold curſe, 1. He speaks of the eternall curſe in ver. 10.2. Of an outward temporary curſe, in ver. 14. ſuch as all men do ſuffer, who are hanged upon a tree; the Apostle brings in this latter curſe in a Rhetoricall manner only, ſaying thus, Chriſt hath redeemed us from the curſe of the Law (namely, from the eternall curſe at the very ſelf-ſame time) when he was made (not that curſe, but) a curſe for us according to Deuter. 21.23.
Anſw. The Apoſtle ver. 13. according to the ſtream of Interpreters anſwers an Objection ariſing out of verſ. 10. thus, If every one be curſed that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the Law to do them, it followeth then that all are accurſed, becauſe no one continueth in all things which are written in the book of the Law to doe them; No, ſaith Paul, foreign activè, eſt ſententia execratoria: paſſivè, ſignificat execrationis poenā tranſgreſſo: ribus legis ſtatutam. Paraeus in loc.for notwithſtanding all are accurſed in themſelves, yet Chriſt hath redeemed us that beleeve (not only freed us, as you corruptly turn it) by laying down a juſt price, from the curſe of the Law, i.e. from the ſentence of the Law called a curſe actively, and the execution of juſtice according to that ſentence, called the curſe paſſively. How? By being made a curſe, i.e. that morall curſe for us. But how doth that appear? For it is written, viz. Deut. 21.23. Curſed is every one that hangeth on a Tree.
The Apoſtle ſpeaks of the eternall or morall curſe, verſ. 10. and of both the eternall and ceremoniall curſe, ver. 13. what more frequent then to hold forth a reall truth by Rhetoricall terms, yet here the Apoſtles ſtile is ſimple not Rhetoricall. Your needleſſe affecting a Rhetoricall ſtile in this Text brings to minde the words of Beza, ſpeaking of Eraſmus, Imò verò in eo poſitae eſt tota noſtra ſpes. Vide Bezam in Gal. 3.13.ſeeking alſo a Trope in this place [Chriſt being made a curſe for us] Nay, verily (ſaith he) in that is our whole hope laid up, in that appeareth the infinite love of God, in that is our ſalvation placed, that our God pour'd out all his wrath upon his own Son, properly and without any trope, he curſed him as he was our ſurety properly and without any Trope. The word [when] whereby you wreſt that unto the time which is ſpoken of the manner how we are redeemed, is of your own putting in, and not in the Text.
Dialogu. I confeſſe that D. Luther was a rare inſtrument in the Church of God in his daies, and he hath expounded the Epiſtle to the Galatians better then many others: but yet I beleeve he is far from the Apoſtles meaning in this matter, and it ſeemeth to me he had ſome doubt alſo about his Expoſition. But he thinketh that the latter curſe may well be expounded of his ſacrifice for the Curſe (and yet that Expoſition is not right neither) for this latter Curſe is no other then an outward temporary curſe. For the Text in Deut. runs thus, If there be in a man a ſin worthy of death, and thou hang him upon a Tree, &c. then he that is hanged is the curſe of God.
Anſw. 'Tis true, that Martin Luther, as you immediatly before ſaid, commenting upon this Text, ſpeaks as follows. And although theſe ſentences may be well expounded after this manner, Chriſt is made a curſe, that is to ſay, a ſacrifice for the curſe, and ſin, that is, a ſacrifice for ſin, yet in my judgement it is better to keep the proper ſignification of the words, becauſe there is a greater force and vehemency therein, as alſo that in the concluſion he affirmeth, that Chriſt bare all our ſins by imputation, and that he bare the curſe of the Law really for us, and in respect of bearing our ſins by imputation he ſaith, that Chriſt was the greateſt thief, blaſphemer, &c.
But becauſe you ſo alledge him, as if he were not ſo much againſt you, nor for us in this controverſie, as indeed he is, and both of them ſo clearly and fully, as no man more, that the Reader may have a true taſte of Luthers ſpirit and judgement in this point, I ſhall tranſcribe what he writes ſoon after what you have cited. Paul therefore (ſaith he) handleth this place with a true Apoſtolicall ſpirit; there is neither Sophiſter, nor Lawyer, nor Jew, nor Anabaptiſt, nor any other, that ſpeaketh as he doth, for who durſt alledge this place out of Moſes, accurſed is every one that hangeth on a tree, and apply it unto Chriſt: like as Paul then applied this ſentence unto Chriſt, even ſo may we apply unto Chriſt not only the whole 27 Chapt. of Deut. but alſo may gather all the curſes of Moſes Law together, and expound the ſame of Chriſt; for as Chriſt is innocent in this generall Law touching his perſon, ſo is he alſo in all the reſt, and as he is guilty in this generall Law, in that he is made a curſe for us, and is hanged upon the Croſſe, as a wicked man, a blaſpemer, a murderer, and a Traitor, even ſo is he alſo guilty in all others; for all the curſes of the Law are heaped together and laid upon him, and therefore he did bear and ſuffer them in his own body for us, he was therefore not only accurſed, but alſo was made a curſe for us. This is to interpret the Scriptures truly, and like an Apoſtle. Thus Luther.
There is not the leaſt appearance that I can obſerve why Luther ſhould ſeem, from what he writes on this Text, to doubt of his Expoſition, but very abundantly much to the contrary.
That Luther and others, who conclude from this Text Chriſt to have ſuffered the wrath of God, have the true meaning thereof, will appear by proving that the perſon hanged upon a tree and accurſed, Deut. 21.23. was a type of Chriſt; for if the Type bare the Ceremoniall, 'tis then manifeſt, that the Antitype bare the morall, that is, the eternall curſe.
If not only the malediction of every one that is hanged upon a tree be held forth, but alſo Chriſts redemption of us from the curſe of the Law by being made a curſe for us be both held forth and foretold, Deut. 21.23. then the Text Deut. 21.23. hath not only a proper but a typicall ſignification.
The malediction of every one that hangs upon a tree is contained in the Text properly. Chriſts redemption of us from the curſe of the Law by being made a curſe for us, is another thing, and cannot be contained therein properly, but only typically. Who, without the peculiar inſpiration of the Spirit could have found that truth in that Text?
But not only the malediction of every one that is hanged upon a Tree is held forth, but alſo Chriſts redemption of us from the curſe of the Law, being made a curſe for us is both held forth and foretold, Deut. 21.23.
The Minor is the Apoſtles, as appeareth by the cauſall particle, For, who proveth the fore-going part of the Text (which is his anſwer to the objection raiſed, as we ſaw before out of verſ. 10. namely, Chriſt hath redeemed, &c.) by the following part, for it is written, Curſed is every one that hangeth upon a tree. If thoſe words, Gal. 3.13. Curſed is every one that hangeth upon a tree, and that Text Deut. 21.23. have both but one and that the ſame one ſenſe, what then hinders that the foregoing part of the verſe, namely, redemption of us from the curſe of the Law by being made a curſe for us, is true of every one that was hanged upon a tree in Judea from Moſes time until the paſſion of Chriſt incluſively, the latter words containing in them a proof of the former, as we ſaw juſt now from the cauſative particle, For. Then which inference what is more abominable?
The typicall reaſon excepted, namely, of ſignifying Chriſt bearing the morall curſe upon the tree, there can be no ſufficient nor probable reaſon given, why hanging upon a tree ſhould infame and faſten upon the perſon hanged this ſpeciall curſe, whence followed the defiling of the Land, in caſe the body continued unburied after Sun-ſet, above all other capitall ſufferings. For were all received which is ſaid by the Hebrew Doctors, that is not repugnant unto Scripture, yet it is certain that ſome crimes for which they were hanged, were not ſo great as ſome crimes which were puniſhed according to other capitall ſentences without hanging. As alſo that hanging after the manner of the Jews, was not ſo painfull as ſome other deaths in uſe with them. Adde hereunto, which is alſo acknowledged by you, that the Jews manner was often to hang them not alive, but after they were dead, yet not he that is ſtoned alive to death is accurſed, but he that is hanged (though firſt ſtoned to death) is accurſed; hanging after ſtoning, though it be acknowledged, yet it is not ſo clearly expreſſed in Scripture, as burning after ſtoning is, Joſh. 7.25. burning the body to aſhes, was as ſore an execution in it ſelf, as hanging up the body for a ſhort ſpace.
There were Malefactors hanged before the giving of this Law, Deu. 21.23. yet we reade not that they were accurſed, during the ſpace between the giving of this Law and the Paſſion of Chriſt, a malefactor hanged out of Judea was not accurſed. In Iudea no perſon how great a malefector ſoever if not hanged was thus accurſed: The perſon hanged was equally accurſed, whether he was hanged alive or dead, whether he was hanged after this manner or after that, Jewiſh or Romane, &c. whether his crime were more hainous, or not ſo hainous. yea, for ought appeareth, though he were innocent, yet if hanged judicially he was accurſed. Since the Paſſion of Chriſt, hanging in Iudea, is not ceremonially accurſed.
For otherwiſe (ſaith Iunius) neither according to the Law of nature, nor according to civill Law,Nam alioqui neque ſecundum naturae legem, &c. Junius paral. lib. 2. par. 52. nor in reſpect of the thing it ſelf, is he that is hanged, accurſed; ſeeing therefore the cauſe why the carcaſſe of him that is hanged, muſt not continue all night unburied, is ceremoniall; Chriſt being the body, and fullfilling of the ceremonies, it is no doubt but in this ceremoniall curſe (Moſes himſelf being a Type of our eternall Mediatour) had reſpect unto our eternall and perfect mediation. This Expoſition making the man that was hanged upon a tree, a ceremoniall curſe, and Chriſt hanged upon a tree a morall curſe, is both generally received, and every way agreeing to the analogy of faith, which is a rule of interpreting Scripture.
In that Chriſt Gal. 3.13. is expreſly ſaid to be a curſe, it will thence unavoidably follow, that ſinne was ſome way judicially upon Chriſt; for we reade of no curſe inflicted according to the determinate and revealed way of proceeding with the reaſonable creature, but preſuppoſeth ſin. Wherefore he could neither have been made a curſe, nor die, ſince the only cauſe of the curſe and of death is ſin, from the which he was free,Luther in Gal. 3.13. but becauſe he had taken upon him our ſins. So Luther.
This Propoſition then, Curſed is every one that hangeth upon a tree, is a typicall propoſition, and containeth in it theſe two truths. 1. That every one that hangeth upon a tree in Iudea from the promulgation of that curſe untill the Paſſion of Chriſt incluſively, is ceremonially accurſed, i. e. all that are hanged ſhall be infamed with this ſpeciall infamy, that the carcaſſes of ſuch, in caſe they be not buried before Sun-ſet ſhall defile the Land. 2. That Chriſt in teſtimony that he redeemed us by beating the morall curſe ſhould be hanged upon a tree.
Eſt enim propria & deſtinata. Jun. in Deut. 21.23. Suſpenſi propter crimen capitale, &c. Piſc. obſ. in Deut. 21. Park. de deſc. l. 3.For Chriſt our Saviour by this manner (ſaith Iunius, ſpeaking of hanging upon the croſſe) is figured by a ceremony proper, appointed of God and ſingular, who as the Apoſtle excellently delivereth, Gal. 3.13. was made a curſe for us. They that were hanged for a capitall crime amongſt the Iſraelites typified Chriſt, who was to be hanged upon a tree for the ſins of the Elect, Piſcator, Parker, in his learned diſcourſe of the Deſcent of Chriſt into hell, not only owneth and uſeth the diſtinction of the judiciall and morall curſe, but ſaith alſo that the malediction of the morall Law may be proved by the malediction of the judiciall Law. How farre M. Ainſworth, Ainſw. on Exo. 27.1.who (though the Dialogue often quote him) in this controverſie is wholly ours, is like minded, judge by his enſuing words upon Deut. 21.23. and here in the utmoſt rigour and ſeverity of the Law, God (ſaith he) fore-ſignified the riches of his grace toward ſinners in Chriſt, who redeemed us from the curſe of the Law, being made a curſe for us, as appeared in that he was hanged upon a tree, Gal. 3.13.
This premiſed for the clearing of the Text, let us ſee, why according to you the word [Curſe] in thoſe words, being made a curſe for us, Gal. 3.13. doth not ſignifie the morall and eternall but an outward and temporall curſe.
Dialogu. This latter curſe is no other then an outward temporary curſe; for the text in Deut. 21, 22. runs thus, If there be in a man a ſin worthy of death, and thou hang him on a tree, &c. then he that is hanged is the curſe of God. What curſe of God is it, that is meant? I anſwer, that may be diſcerned by taking notice of what kinde of perſons, and for what kinde of ſin this curſe of God doth fall upon any, The perſons, the Text deſcribes them thus, namely, he that is put to death as a Malefactor, by the Magiſtrate. The kinde of ſins that are ſaid to deſerve this curſe of hanging upon a tree, are deſcribed by this generall term, a ſinne worthy of death, namely of this death; hence it is evident, that not every ſinne that deſerved death is here meant, but ſuch as deſerved a double death, namely, 1. Stoning to death. 2. Hanging up of their bodies upon a tree, after they were ſtoned to death.
Anſw. Though the perſon thus accurſed was according to the Law a perſon worthy of death, yet not the guilt of the perſon, but the typifying of the morall curſe was the reaſon of this ceremoniall curſe. For greater Malefactors (as was intimated before) then ſome that were hanged, if they were not hanged were not accurſed. Though the manner of the Jews were to hang up thoſe that were ſtoned to death, yet we reade not in the Scripture of any that were both ſtoned and hanged, though we reade of Achan that he was both ſtoned and burned, but not that he was hanged. Naboth was ſtoned but we do not reade that he was hanged. The King of Ai was hanged, but we do not reade that he was firſt ſtoned, Joſh. 8.29. The like we may obſerve of Sauls ſons, 2 Sam. 29.4. The Gibeonites being Proſelytes were bound to the ſame laws with the Jews, Exod. 12.49. Thoſe five Kings that were hanged were firſt ſlain (but 'tis not ſaid they were ſtoned, nor doth any reaſon in the text leade ſo to think) and afterwards hanged. Howſoever it is no conſequence, they were great offenders upon whom the ceremoniall curſe was inflicted, Deut. 21.23. Therefore the curſe inflicted upon Chriſt (whom we have already proved to be the greateſt offender, as being imputatively guilty of all the ſins of the elect both hanged upon the croſſe, and others) was not the morall curſe.
Dialogu M. Calvin in Deut. 21.23. ſaith, That the hanging of Chriſt upon a tree was not after the manner that is here spoken of; for ſuch as were ſtoned to death among the Jews, were alſo hanged up upon a gibbet after they were dead.
M. Goodwin and M. Ainſworth from the Hebrew Doctors reckon 18 particular capitall ſins, for which men were firſt stoned to death and after hanged, and M. Ainſworth doth alſo ſay, that the Hebrew Doctors do not underſtand this hanging of being put to death by hanging, but of hanging a man up after he was ſtoned to death, which was done for the greater deteſtation of ſuch heinous malefactors.
Anſw. M. Ainſworth upon Exo. 12.21. telleth us that the Hebrew Doctors ſay, that all that were to be ſtoned death by the Law, were 18. but he doth not there ſay, that after they were ſtoned they were hanged;The curſe indeed faſtened upon the perſon hanged, ſhewed the hainouſneſſe of ſinne charged upon the Antitype as our ſurety, but that the Jews would not ſee. though the Hebrew Doctors ſay there were 18 ſins for which men were ſtoned and hanged (not women, ſee Ainſworth on Deut. 21.22.) yet Moſes doth not ſay ſo. Who is ignorant that the Jewiſh and Romane manner of hanging was (as Calvin ſaith) diverſe? or who denieth the manner of the Jews for a long time to be according to their Doctors writings? but we look at this diſcourſe as impertinent. It doth not appear that hanging by divine inſtitution above all other puniſhments pointed out the deteſtation of the fact. If it did, the perſon hanged was ſo much the fitter to be infamed with that curſe, which might render him a type of the truth in controverſie, namely, that Chriſt who was hanged upon the tree, was the moſt hainous Malefactor imputatively.
Dialogu. The rebellious ſon Deut. 21.21. is brought in as an inſtance of this double puniſhment, he was firſt ſtoned to death, and then hanged upon a tree.
Anſw. The Dialogue ſaith ſo, but not the Text, interpreters look at the Law concerning the diſobedient ſon, and the Law concerning the perſon hanged, as diſtinct laws, whether ſo or not is not materiall to the point in hand.
Dialogu. Thou ſhalt not let his carkaſſe remain all night upon the Tree, but thou ſhalt ſurely bury him in the ſame day at the going down of the Sun, and the reaſon is added, becauſe he is the curſed of God, namely, becauſe ſuch ſinners are more eminently curſed of God, becauſe they were puniſhed with the heavieſt kinde of death that the Iudges of Iſrael did uſe to inflict upon any Malefactors.
Anſw. All that were hanged, and only thoſe that were hanged in Iudea, after this Law given, were thus accurſed, without reference to any other puniſhment ſuffered or not. Though hanging of it ſelf concludeth the perſon accurſed, yet not puniſhed with the heavieſt kinde of death. Stoning and burning were by the Hebrew Doctors themſelves both diſtinguiſhed from and accounted heavier then ſtrangling or hanging. See Ainſw. on Exod. 12.21. If they were dead before they were hanged, they felt not the pain of hanging. All that were ſlain before they were hanged were not ſtoned, Ioſh. 10.26. If a man were both ſtoned and hanged, yet ſtoning and burning was as heavy, if not a heavier puniſhment, of which laſt execution we reade expreſly, Ioſh. 7. but not ſo of the firſt. Even according to the Hebrew Doctors alledged by M. Goodwin and M. Ainſworth, you may obſerve ſome offences puniſhed with ſtoning and burning, not ſo hainous as ſome offences puniſhed by other deaths. Lying with his daughter in law, or a betrothed maid, was according to them puniſhed with ſtoning to death and hanging: whereas lying with his daughter, and that whileſt his wife lived, was puniſhed with burning, and murder was puniſhed with the ſword. Ainſ. on Exo. 12.21. The reaſon why ſuch ſinners as were hanged were more eminently curſed of God, then other malefactors, was not becauſe they were puniſhed with the heavieſt kinde of death, but for the typicall uſe of this death.
Dialogu. I think I have ſufficiently proved that God did not appoint the hanging upon a tree to be a type of the temporall curſe.
Anſw. We think you have not, and indeed that in all you have ſaid, you have ſaid little to that purpoſe: whoſe thoughts are right, belongs to the Reader to judge.
Dialogu. If hanging upon the tree had been appointed by God to be a type of the eternall curſe, then every one that is hanged upon a tree ſhould be eternally accurſed, and then diverſe Martyrs that were crucified, as Chriſt was, are eternally accurſed, and then the penitent thief was eternally accurſed.
Anſw. Nothing ſo,Neque enim maledictos vocat, ac fi deſperata eſſet corum ſalus, ſed quia maledictionis nota eſt ſuſpenſio. Calv. in 5. lib. Moſis. for the type as the type could not be the Antitype. Canaan was a type of heaven, but Canaan was not heaven. Adam in his firſt ſin was a type of Chriſt obeying, Rom. 5.14. yet Adam was not Chriſt, nor diſobedience obedience. Calvin often alledged by the Dialogue telleth you that the ſalvation of him that was hanged upon a tree was not deſperate. A perſon might be ceremonially accurſed, yet everlaſtingly bleſſed.
As if it were requiſite to the being of a type, or thing ſignifying, that it put on the nature of the Antitype, or thing ſignified, whereas the type as the type, can no more put on the nature of the Anti-type then the adjunct can put on the nature of the ſubject.
Adam as a publike perſon diſobeying and communicating guilt and puniſhment to his ſeed, was a type,foreign. Rom. 5.14. of Chriſt obeying and communicating righteouſneſſe and life unto his ſeed. Did then the firſt Adam put on the nature of the ſecond, and ſo become a mediator? or did obedience put on the nature of diſobedience? Moſes the Miniſter of the Law dying before he came into Canaan (as M. Ainſworth obſerveth on Numb. 20.12.) ſignified the impotency of the Law to ſave; was therefore Moſes no inſtrument of ſalvation unto any? Cyrus was a type of Chriſt, muſt therefore Cyrus not only be ſaved, but alſo put on the nature of a Mediator, who neither then Iſa. 45.4.5. nor afterwards for ought that appeared, beleeved? Who ever reaſoned thus before, that in any meaſure underſtood the nature of a type?
Dialogu. But if the circumſtances of the Text be well marked, they will tell you plainly, that this hanging upon a tree cannot be a type of the eternall curſe; for 1. This Law of Moſes muſt not be underſtood of putting any man to death by hanging, but of hanging of a dead body upon a tree after it was firſt put to death by ſtoning: but Chriſt was crucified whileſt he was alive. 2. This hanging in Moſes time was done by the judiciall Law and civil Magiſtrates, and not by the ceremoniall Law nor the Priests. 3. This hanging in Moſes was commanded to be practiſed by the Magiſtrates of the Iews Common-wealth, but the death which Chriſt ſuffered was a Roman kinde of death.
Anſw. Yet Paul who well marked and underſtood alſo the Circumſtances of the Text, telleth us plainly, Gal. 3.13. that Chriſt hanging upon the Croſſe, though by the Romane power, and alſo after a Romane manner, was intended in, and proved out of Deut. 21.23. The ceremoniall curſe therefore was laid upon every one that was judicially hanged upon a tree in Judea, from the time of the giving of this Law until the time of the paſſion of Chriſt, by what lawfull authority ſoever, or after what manner ſoever.
The principall ſcope of this Text is not to command putting to death by hanging upon a tree (the ground whereof is had elſewhere) but to give a Law concerning him that is hanged, namely, that he ſhould in any wiſe be buried that day, with the reaſons thereof annexed.
Dialogu. When the Romans did put Chriſt to that kinde of death which they uſed to inflict upon their baſe fugitive ſlaves, they made him curſed in his death in the higheſt degree they could, and yet at the ſelf-ſame time Chriſt did redeem us from the curſe of the Law, even from the eternall curſe, becauſe Christ died not only as a Malefactor by the power of Roman ſouldiers, but he died alſo as a Mediator by his own Mediatoriall obedience.
Anſw. If he that only granteth Chriſt died as a Malefactor in the Romans and Jews account, but denieth that he died a Malefactor in Gods account, ſhould not put in that yet Chriſt died as a Mediator, he could expect no other but utmoſt abhorrence from every Chriſtian man, for ſuch a tenet as did not ſecretly ſteal away by ſubtle ſophiſms, but openly and before the Sun, ſpoil them of their Mediator.
The curſe laid upon Chriſt hanging upon a tree, was not the curſe of the Romans, or a humane but a divine curſe, Gal. 3.13. Deut. 21.23. for he that is hanged is accurſed of God. Chriſts death as a Malefactor in the Jews and Romans account unjuſtly, was a part, though but a ſmall part of the juſt puniſhment of God inflicted upon him, as the great Malefactor imputatively in Gods account: Chriſt died both as a Mediatour and as a Malefactor in Gods account. Of his dying as a Mediatour and as a Malefactor in the ſenſe of the Dialogue, See before, Ch. 10.
Dialogu. This act of Chriſt was an everlaſting act of Mediatoriall obedience, it was no legall obedience, nor was it any humane act of obedience, as all legall obedience muſt be, but it was a ſupernaturall act of obedience, it was no leſſe then a Mediatoriall oblation, and therefore it was the meritorious procuring cauſe of our Redemption from the curſe of the Law even at that very ſame time when Chriſt was made a curſe for us, by hanging as a Malefactor upon a tree.
Anſw. Chriſt acted in his death, not as his own Executioner, but as our Prieſt and faithfull Surety yeelding up his life according to his voluntary pre-conſent. This act of Chriſt in laying down his life was an act of legall obedience, becauſe it was done in obedience to the Law, This commandment have I received from my Father. Joh. 10.18. He was obedient to the death, he humbled himſelf, and became obedient to the death, even the death of the Croſſe, Phil. 2.8. He was made under that is, ſubject to the Law, Gal. 4.4. and fullfilled the Law, Mat. 5.17. this act of laying down his life was ſupernaturall, but not only ſupernaturall, it was both divine and humane, according to both natures, for it was the act and obedience of him who was God-man, as God-man-Mediator, otherwiſe it could not have been effectuall. This reaſoning is as full of perill, as empty of ſound reaſon.
Dialogu Therefore the Tree on which Chriſt was crucified as a Malefactor cannot be the Altar, neither were the Roman Souldiers the Prieſts by whom this mediatorial ſacrifice was offered up to God, but it was his own Godhead that was the Prieſt, and his own Godhead was the Altar, by which he offered up his ſoul to God, a mediatorial ſacrifice for the procuring of our redemption from the curſe of the Law.
Anſw. Who ſaith the Tree was the Altar, or that the Souldiers were the Prieſts? when the croſſe is ſometimes in Writers reſembled unto the Altar, it is an illuſtration by way of alluſion unto the type, that is, the Altar whereon the beaſt was laid, but not unto the Antitype; Chriſt was both Prieſt, Sacrifice, and Altar, which yet is not to be underſtood as excluding either of his natures in any of theſe conſiderations: He was a Sacrifice in reſpect of his humane nature, yet he who was the Sacrifice was both God and Man: He was the Altar in reſpect of his divine nature, yet he that was the Altar was both God and Man. He was Prieſt as God-man.