Beveridge on Article III: Of the going down of Christ into Hell

HOUGH this article be in itself as clear and certain as : any of the rest, yet men having exercised their fancies so variously upon it, they have drawn, as it were, a veil over it, and so eclipsed the light of it. And hence it is that some do not rightly understand it, others scruple at it, yea, and others do in plain terms contradict and gainsay it. That the first of these may be taught the truth concerning it, the second resolved about it, and the third convinced of their error in denying it, I shall first lay down some propositions to clear it, and then proceed to the confirmation of it.

First, It will easily be granted that this article, as it is here delivered, was taken out of that which we commonly call the Apostles’ Creed, it following and foregoing the same things here that it doth there. In the former article going before this it is said, he suffered, was crucified, dead and buried. In this, he descended into hell. In the next immediately coming after it, that he arose again from the dead, and ascended into heaven. And hence also that the meaning and purport of it must needs be the same in both places.

Secondly, I must confess that we cannot prove that this article was inserted in that Creed of almost 400 years after Christ, the Aquileian being the first particular church which is known to have inserted it in theirs: according to which aRuffinus, being baptized into that church, framed his expo- sition of the Creed, with this article in it, but affirming that in his time (which was about the fourth century after Christ)

a8 Nos tamen illum ordinem se-sia, per lavacri gratiam suscepimus. quimur quem in Aquileiensi eccle- Ruffin. in exposit. symboli. [p. 17.]

Art.

114 Of the going down of Christ into Hell.

it was neither in the > Roman nor in the Eastern creeds; which words of his some bring to prove the novelty of this article, but I think they are as great an argument for its antiquity as can be produced: for in that he saith it was not in the Roman nor Eastern creeds, he seems to me plainly to imply it was in some other creeds besides them. But suppose this article was never in any other before the Aquileian, this derogates nothing at all from the truth of it; for there are other-articles of our faith that were never questioned, but always received as undoubted truths; as that of our Saviour’s death, the communion of saints, God’s being the maker of heaven and earth, all left out of the ancient creeds expounded by Ruffinus, Maximus, and Chrysologus, and many° others. Yea, and there is only one of them, viz. that of God’s being the maker of heaven and earth, expressed in the Constantino- politan. Now none can say, because that these are not in- serted in these creeds they are no articles of our faith: espe- cially it would be a groundless argument against this under hand, being though we cannot produce any certain proof of its being in the creed before the Aquileian church brought it in, yet it hath ever since been received as an undoubted truth for this 1200 years together. And I can see no reason why we, at the length, after so many centuries acknowledgment of it, should now bring it to the bar, and accuse it of forgery and usurpation.

Thirdly, I must confess also that the words in the 4 Greek and ¢ Latin creeds, which we translate he descended into hell,

Sciendum sane est quod in ec- clesize Romanz symbolo non habe- tur additum, descendit ad inferna: sed neque in Orientis ecclesiis habe- tur hic sermo. Ibid. [p. 22.]

¢ As in those extant in Venantius Fortunatus, L. 11. in expos. symb. [p-1227.] In Etherius and Beatus, 785 years after Christ. And the two Greek ones also, that of Mar- cellus, and the other written in the time of the English Saxons, excribed by the bishop of Armagh, in Diat. de eccles. Rom. symb. [p. 6.]

4 In the Greek the words are, xa- tehOdvra eis ddov (viz. ré7ov) in the Apostles’ Creed; kared@dy eis rov

aénv in Athanasius’s, and xarndOev ev adn, as it is in Hore Beatz Ma- riz; or, as others, catjAOev eis ddov; and they all amount to the same thing; only in the ancient manu- scripts in Bennet College library, cited by the reverend archbishop of Armagh, it is kareX@dvra eis ra kar@rara; and in the Confession of Sirmium, es 7a xaraxOdvia KareA- Odvra, which more exactly answers the Latin.

© In the Latin it is, Descendit ad inferos; sometimes, Descendit ad inferna; sometimes, in inferna. Where we must look upon the in- Feri as the inhabitants of the inferna,

III.

Of the going down of Christ into Hell. 115

may admit of another interpretation than what in such a translation of them we put upon them. The word hades especially, which we translate ell, being often used to express the state of the dead in general, without any restriction or limitation of happiness or misery. In which sense in English we have no one word to give the full meaning or purport of it. Neither can I tell how to give a better periphrasis of it than by translating of it the other world, that invisible place where the souls that leave their bodies live, whether it be a place of bliss or torments. And in this sense I confess it is some- time taken ‘in scripture, the Apocrypha, Fathers, yea, and in

and inferna the habitations of the inferi. So that descendit ad inferos and ad inferna amount to the same thing too; for he could not descend ad inferna, but he must descend ad inferos ; neither could he descend ad inferos, but he must descend ad inferna.

f Out of scripture, omitting some other places where it cannot well bear any other sense than this, I shall only produce two: the one out of the Old, the other out of the New Testament. That of the Old is, D9D? MI TNT Nd) Tm 1232 °D Sxw 79D wb, which the LXX. renders, ris éorw dvOperos 6 (yoe- TAL, Kal ovK Orperar Oavaroy; piTeETaL THy Wvxynv aitod ék xetpds ddov, Ps. Ixxxix. 49. where the Hebrew 5ixv, and Greek ddns, cannot possibly signify any more than the state of death; or, as the Targ. wn713p 3, “the house of the grave,” it being here used in as large a sense as death itself. The place in the New Testament is, Kat 6 @avaros kal 6 ddns ewxev tovs ev avrois veKpovs, And death and hades gave up their dead, Apoc. xx. 13. Syr. |Zosxo Nes 80 And death and scheul, (where we may note, by the way, how the Septuagint in the Old Tes- tament render scheul by hades; and the Syriac, on the other hand, in the New, renders hades by scheul; so indifferently were these two words used for one another,) where déns again comprehends as many as Ga- varos; and so it cannot signify here

hell; for certainly that will never give up those that are init. And so in the next verse it is said, Kal 6 Gdvaros kal 6 ddns €BAnOnoar eis Thy Aiuyny Tov wupos, which certainly hell can never be. And as for the Apo- crypha, there we read, ‘O eyeipas Tov vekpov ék Oavdarov kal e& adov, Ec- clus. xlvili. 5; that is, as the Syriac renders it, \ds@ [aco con, “who restored the dead from scheul to life ;” where we may also observe how the Syriac renders both 6dvaros and déns by one word \cas. And so doth the Arabic too crowd them both into ul, “the grave,” plainly intimating that both words signify but one and the same thing: and in the same sense it is also taken plainly in other places of the Apocrypha, as Kal 7 (an pov qv ctveyyus abou Kara. Eccles. li. 9. And Tayéws Aéyav mporréwrrety eis aOnv, 2 Macc. vi. 23. And in this sense did the Fathers also frequently use the word adys and inferi, as Tay yap Cons eorepnpe- veov vooir dy cikdtws 6 adns oikds TE kat evdvairnpa. Cyril. Alex. in Gen. 1.6. [vol. I. p. r91.] “AAG kal “ED- Anves, kal BapBapot, kal rroiral, Kat pirdcopor, kal ray avOparwy yevos, ovppavodvow év TovTos nui, ei Kal p71) Opoiws, kal pdow eivar riva dika- oTnpta ev ddov, ovT@ davepoy Kal a0- Aoynpevoy TO mpaypa eore. Chrysost. in 2 Cor. hom. g. [vol. III. p. 600. ] Ti d€ 6 ddns; of pev avrov pdor XGpov trdyevoy oKdrewov, of Se Thy dno Tod eupavors eis TO aaves kal

Art,

116 Of the going down of Christ into Hell.

heathenish authors too. And as for the Latin iferi, it is often taken in the same sense, yea, and mostly used to ex- press hades by.

Fourthly, Though therefore we cannot but acknowledge that the Greek word hades (and so the Latin imferi) may sometimes, both in scripture and other writings, signify no more than the receptacle of souls in general, as the grave is the receptacle of bodies; yet it cannot be denied but that it often, if not mostly, is used to express the receptacle of sinful souls in particular, or that which we in English call hell, the place of the damned. Especially when the Holy Ghost makes use of it to reveal the will of the great God by in the holy scriptures to us: and certainly it is the scriptural use of it which in the exposition of the Creed we are principally to attend unto. I shall here instance but in two or three places, wherein it cannot possibly be taken in any other sense; as, Luke xvi. 23. 8 And in hades he lift up his eyes, being in tor-

[…]

HE Of the going down of Christ into Heil. AT

ments ; where we may see how the Holy Ghost himself, to satisfy our scruples in this particular, is his own interpreter, plainly telling us that when he was in hades he was in tor- ments. And in the next verse he tells Abraham he was ¢or- mented in those flames. So Matt. xi. 23.> And thow Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be brought down to hades ; where we see heaven and hades opposed to one another, the height of happiness unto the depth of misery. And here also the Holy Ghost seems to point at the sense he would have us to understand the word in, saying in the next verse, Jt shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for thee: as if he should say, Sodom shall rather escape being thrown into hell and the place of torments, than thou, who hast the light but wilt not walk according to it. To name no more, Matt. xvi. 18. 1 The gates of hades shall not prevail against thee; where hades cannot be taken for any thing else than the place where the devils remain and are tormented: as if he should have said*, All the devils in hell shall never prevail against my church. There are some other places wherein this word occurs, but these may suffice to clear this truth, that the Holy Ghost doth frequently, if not always, use this word /ades in a bad sense, to denote the place of tor- ments and everlasting misery. And in this sense also did the Fathers of the primitive church usually take the word. Thus

And when he was tormented in scheul, (and here we may also observe how

the Syriac \cas, and the Ethiopic (LAG, Siol, both taken from the Hebrew >1xw, are both used in this place to denote a place of tor- ments,) he lift up his eyes. And the Arabic in plain terms, when he was

=a) 3m Gehenna, in hell.

And St. Augustine notes, Inferorum mentionem non esse factam in re- quie pauperis sed supplicio divitis. De Gen. ad lit. 1. 12. c. [63. vol. III. p- 321.]

h In the Greek it is Kal od Ka- mepvaovy 4 €ws Tod ovpavod tpwHei- ga éws ddov KataBiBacOjon’ where both the Arabic renders ado. by

@axicsul, and the Ethiopic by VU12P Gehenna, which cannot signify any thing else but hell.

7 \ , bd > , 1 Kat mvAae abou ov Kariayvoovow avrjs’ where the Arabic renders it

again by eassvcswJj, Gehenna, the Syriac by “eas, the Ethiopic by MLAB Siol.

[…]

Arr.

118 Of the going down of Christ into Hell.

Theodoret commends the ancient philosophers, in that they sent the souls of them that lived well and virtuously to hea- ven!, but such as lived otherwise to hades. And what St. Au- gustine’s opinion concerning the word was is clear from the etymology he giveth of it, saying, it is called hades™ because there is nothing sweet there ; and therefore he must needs account it a place of great bitterness and torments indeed. And elsewhere the same Father tells us, that ®inferi (which always answers the Greek hades) in scripture is seldom or never taken in a good part, to signify heaven, but always hell. And St. Hierome saith°, it is a place of punishments and torments.

Fifthly, Though the word hades in itself may sometimes signify only the other world in general, yet, as it stands in the Creed, it cannot by any means admit of any other significa- tion than what is put upon it when it is translated hell: which any one may easily perceive which considers, first, that the word may well bear it; secondly, that it is the most usual signification of it in scripture, as I have shewed in some places already, and might with the same facility prove it to be so taken in most of the rest. And certainly, the Creed being taken out of the scripture, it is the scripture that is to give the exposition

[…]

m Unde et in Greca lingua origo - nominis (viz. hades) quo appellantur inferi, ex eo quod nihil suave habe- ant resonare perhibetur. August. de Gen. ad literam, 1. 12. c. [66. vol. III. p. 322.] viz. from a privat. and 7dvs, sweet, pleasant; or, as Eustathius, the ancient scholiast on Homer, ’AAN dé rod Hdov pact mapaxOnvar Tov aony Kar’ avridpacty 6 7Serat kal yaiper ovdeis, in Homer. hliad. 1. [vol. I. p. 37.]

n Non enim facile alicubi scrip- turarum inferorum nomen positum invenitur in bono, August. de pre- sentia Dei ad Dardanum, [ep. 187. 6. vol. II. p.679.] Quid his ergo preestiterit qui dolores solvit inferni, in quibus illi non fuerunt, nondum intelligo; preesertim quia ne ipsos

ad Euodium. Quanquam et illud me nondum invenisse confiteor, in- feros appellatos ubi justorum anime requiescunt, Id. de Genesi ad liter. 1, 12. ec. [63. vol. III. p. 320.] Pro- inde ut dixi nondum inveni et adhuc quero, nec mihi occurrit inferos ali- cubi in bono posuisse scripturam duntaxat canonicam. Ibid. [64.]

© Infernus locus suppliciorum at- que cruciatuum est, in quo videtur Dives purpuratus; ad quem de- scendit et Dominus, ut vinctos de carcere dimitteret. Hieron. [vol. TV. p. 250.] in Isa. c. 14. Thus also saith Justin Martyr, (or whosoever was the author of the quest. et re- spon. ad orthodox.) Ai 8€ ray adi- kav Wuxai eis rods €v TS Gdn rérovs.

Quest. 75. [p. 470. ]

Il. Of the going down of Christ into Hell. 11g

of the Creed: and therefore this word in particular must needs be granted to signify the same in the Creed, which was taken out of the scripture, as it doth in the scripture out of which it was taken. Especially considering, thirdly, that the ge- neral acception of the word, as it denotes the other world, cannot without a great absurdity be forced upon it as it is | here used to express an article of the Creed : for it will easily be granted, that in so short an Pabstract of our Christian faith it is not likely the same thing should be expressed twice over. Which notwithstanding must be, if the words which we translate he descended into hell should signify no more than he descended or went into the other world; for that was sufficiently expressed before, when it was said that he was dead. For though death and hades be not the same, yet to be dead and to be in hades are the same thing: for in that sense a man cannot be dead but he must be in hades, neither can a man be in hades but he must be dead. And upon the same account it is that it cannot be admitted that this article should be the same with that of his burial, that he descended into hell and he was buried should be the same, interpreting the word hades of the grave. For besides that hades is one thing, and the grave another, the grave being the receptacle of the bodies, and hades of the (souls, here would be the same thing expressed twice; yea, and the lat- ter expression of it would not be ‘exegetical and declarative

[…]

‘

120 Of the going down of Christ into Hell. Art.

of the former, but the former would rather be exegetical and declarative of the latter; which how absurd and ridiculous it would be, let any man judge; especially considering that his burial and descent into hell, as signifying two distinct things, seem both necessary to be inserted into the Creed, so that we might know whither both his soul and his body went imme- diately after his death and crucifixion: his body, that was buried; and his soul, that went down to hell: so was he both buried and went down into hell.

But lastly, Howsoever such an interpretation may be forced upon this article as it stands in the Apostles’ Creed, yet we are sure there can be no such sense put upon it as it is here delivered as the doctrine of the Church of England. For though the Greek word hades may sometimes signify no more than the other, or invisible world, where souls after separa- tion from their bodies remain, yet our English word hel will bear no such sense, it being always used by learned and igno- rant to denote the place of misery and torments prepared for such souls as go from hence in their sins. And therefore the reverend Convocation that composed these Articles, rendering the Greek hades by the English hell, (as it was always used in our English creeds,) they have put a period to the question ; so that we must either acknowledge that Christ did in plain terms descend into hell, or deny this article of our church; to the truth whereof, notwithstanding, all that are admitted into benefices are bound by act of parliament to subscribe: and certainly, if we weigh it thoroughly in the balance of unbiassed reason, we shall find nothing in it to deter us from subserib- » ing to it, and that in its literal sense and meaning, which I Suppose is no more than this: that our Lord Christ, the Son of God, having taken our human nature upon him, had a real soul as we have, as well as body; which soul being breathed from his body upon the cross did immediately go to hell, or the place of torments, where the Devil and damned souls lay in misery: that as his body went to the grave, so did his soul go to hell. The end of his descent is not expressed. in these Articles, whether to triumph over the devils, or to preach to the souls of men, or any other, (as it was in the

III. Of the going down of Christ into Hell. 121

s Articles agreed upon in the year 1552): but only in general, that he descended into hell; which that he did, I can see no other but that scripture and reason do both evince.

Many scriptures have been brought for the proof of this truth ; some whereof were of sufficient force to convince gain- sayers of it in ancient times, which are not of the same validity now; as that in Peter, Being put to death in the Jlesh, but quickened in the Spirit, by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison, 1 Pet. iii. 18,19. Which place many of ‘the ancients interpreted of the descent of Christ into hell, or the place of damned spirits. Which interpretation was so generally received in the primitive church, that they did not for a great while seek out for any other, but took this to be the undoubted meaning of the place; so that to name the place to them was a sufficient proof of the thing. But another exposition universally possessing men’s hearts now, the argu- ment is rendered now altogether useless and invalid for the purpose aforesaid. Though I do confess, that was a man re- solved to hold it, that this place is to be understood of the soul or spirit of Christ’s real descent into hell, I know no rea-

sons strong enough to draw him from his error in it.

[…]

Tam

[…]

Arr.

122 Of the going down of Ohrist into Hell.

sure the ancient “Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopie translations seem clearly to carry the sense that way.

There is another place also that seems to have been an argument for this truth in the primitive church, that hath lost much of its virtue now; and that is this, Acts ii. 24, where it is said of Christ, Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that he should be holden of it: where, instead of the pains of death, some of the ancient Fathers read the pains of hell, or hades, (Vulgar Latin, énferni ;) and so doth the Syriac render it plainly, the y sorrows of scheul, or hell. And truly, was I deprived of the

u The Syriac renders the latter end of the 18th verse, Rea Lasoo

word [aro “And he died in the body, but lived in the spirit ;” that is, his body indeed was dead, but his soul or spirit was yet alive. And then in the next verse, Wolo WOM gpawl? cards| [Lear \oamD, “And he preached to the souls that were detained in hell ;” that is, as the words manifestly im- port, though his body was dead, yet his soul or spirit being alive, in that he went and preached in hell. For here we can by no means under- stand his spirit of the Holy Ghost, by which he preached in the days of Noah; he not being said to have preached by the spirit by which he was quickened, but simply he went and preached. The Arabic more clearly; “He was dead in the flesh, but lived in the spirit,”

wH5 xs sd_IJ, in which he betook himself, or went to the spirits in prison, and preached; plainly implying, that the spirit, in which he lived after his body was dead, in that he went to hell, and preached. And the Ethiopic trans- lation, though it doth render ¢v 76

mvedpart by NEDELN: PRN:

in Spiritu Sancto, yet it doth not say that it was in this that he went down to hell; but only in general,

that he that was put to death in the flesh and quickened in the Spirit went to the souls shut up in hell, and preached to them. He did not go in the Holy Spirit, but himself went in his own spirit. So that these ancient translations seem clearly to import that he did indeed go to hell.

x The words in Syriac are [220

\cee? Madtan “and he loosed the sorrows, or pains of scheul;” because he could not be detained Neead oD “in hell.”

y Thus Polycarp read it: “Ov Hyepev 6 Geds AUGas Tas @divas Tov doov. Or, as it is in the Latin trans- lation, Quem resuscitavit Deus dis- solvens dolores inferni. Polycarp. epist. ad Philip. [p.14.] And Ire- neus, Quem Deus resuscitavit so- lutis doloribus inferorum. Iren. adv. heres. 1. 3. c. 12. [2.] So that two of the most ancient Christian writers that we have, plainly read itso. And if we descend down into after-ages we shall find St. Augustine [vol. II.] never quoting the place, but still read it so too; as: In quibus etiam hoc est quod apud inferos fuit, solutisque eorum doloribus quibus eum erat impossibile detineri. Epist. re4. 14.| Unde beatus Petrus eum

icit solvisse dolores inferni, in qui- bus impossibile erat detineri eum. Id. epist. [187. 6.] Quomdo enim aliter accipiendum sit quod dictum

ITE

Of the going down of Christ into Hell. 123

original Greek, and confined to a translation of the New Testament, I should choose the Syriac above all the rest, it being (as may easily be demonstrated) the first translation that was ever made of it; and therefore, in all probability, made before the malice of heretics or the negligence of tran- seribers had brought any various readings into it. And for my part, the Syriac in this place rendering the Greek word by scheul, 1 cannot but persuade myself the word in Greek, when this translation was made, was nothing else but hades, there being no other word it renders by scheul but only that. Espe- cially many of the Fathers seeming to have read it so too; yea, St. Augustine produceth this place to prove that Christ descended into hell ; as we may see in our quotations of him at the end of this article and in the margent.

But there are some places which ever were and ever will be clear proofs of this truth. As, first, Eph. iv. 9, Now that he ascended, what is it but that he descended first into the lower parts of the earth. He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things : where the lower parts of the earth, to which Christ descended, I cannot see how they can be otherwise interpreted than of hell. For to say by the lower parts of the earth is meant no more than earth itself, to me it seems but a poor evasion. For where in scripture do we find the lower parts of earth put for earth itself? Or suppose it was so, yet here his ascend- ing and his descending have reference to one another. So

est, Quem Deus suscitavit ex mor- tuis solutis doloribus inferorum. Id. de Genesi ad literam, 1. 12. c. 33- [63- vol. III. par. i. p. 321.] And so, wheresoever else he quotes the place; and so others too, as Epiphanius in Anchor. et heres. 69. Fulgent. 1. 3. ad Thrasimund. : and hence it is, that in some Greek co- pies, particularly in that of Stepha- nus, printed an. 1550, ddov is put into the margent, as a different read- ing from @avdrov, it being in some, as well as Gavdrov in other copies.

z Et Christi quidem animam ve- nisse usque ad ea loca in quibus peccatores cruciantur, ut eos solve-

ret a tormentis quos esse solvendos occulta nobis sua justitia judicabat, non immerito creditur. Quomodo enim aliter accipiendum sit quod dictum est, Quem deus suscitavit ex mortuis solutis doloribus inferorum, quia non poterat teneri ab iis, non video, nisi ut quorundam dolores apud inferos eum solvisse accipia- mus ea potestate qua dominus est, cui omne genu flectitur celestium terrestrium et infernorum, per quam potestatem etiam illis doloribus quos solvit non potuit teneri. Aug. de Genesi ad literam, 1.12. c. 33. [63. vol. III. par. i. pp. 320, 321.]

ART.

124 Of the going down of Christ into Hell.

that the apostle seems clearly to intend the descent which immediately preceded his ascent into heaven, which could be no other than his descent into hell. It was many years after his descending to earth before his ascending to heaven; but his ascent into heaven was not much more than so many hours after his descent into the lower parts of earth, or hell*. Neither can we think that by the lower parts of earth here we must understand his grave, for that is seldom six foot deep in the earth, and therefore cannot well be called the lower parts of it. But again, here we see not only his ascending and his descending opposed to one another, but the lower parts of earth to the highest parts of heaven. So that we are to look out for the extremes that are the most distant from and contrary to one another in heaven and earth, the highest place in heaven and the lowest place in earth. The highest place in heaven, what is it but the right hand of God, whither Christ ascended? The lower parts of earth, what is it but hell, whither Christ descended ?

Another place upon which we may build this truth is Rom. x. 6. But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thy heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ from above:) or, Who shall descend into the deep ? (that is, to bring Christ up again from the dead.) In which words we may observe, first, that Christ was among the dead; otherwise it could not be said, that is, to bring him Jrom the dead. Secondly, as he was amongst the dead, so it was a deep place, otherwise it could not be said, Who shall descend into the deep? Nay, thirdly, it was such a deep as the Greeks call an abyss, a bottomless pit, by which name hell is

@ And thus doth the Ethiopic translation seem clearly to carry the sense, rendering the words,

Ofe7t’r: HO2Z): AN: AO2Zk: PtAhth: POLL:

Kit que est quod ascendit, nisi quod descendit infra terram ; When he came from heaven to earth, he did not descend under the earth, but only to the top of it.”’ So that by

these words A0+4+-hf: AVL-C:

mytyhata mydr, Under the earth, we cannot probably understand any thing but hell, the only place gene- rally thought to be under earth. Nay, and this was the sense of the Fathers too upon the place. Infe- riora autem terre Infernus accipi- tur, ad quem Dominus noster Sal- vatorque descendit. Hieron. in loc. [vol. VII. p. 613.] Nay and Ire- neus brings this place, amongst others, to prove that Christ conti-

III. Of the going down of Christ into Hell. 125

called, Apoe. ix. 1,2; xi.‘7; xx.1,3. And I know not where the Greek word can well be otherwise interpreted ; howsoever not here, and therefore doth the Syriac give us the explica- tion as well as the translation of the word, rendering it the deep, or abyss of hell. And therefore also do many, both ancient and modern writers, expound and interpret the words in this sense; and whosoever goes after them will not have many rubs in his way to stop his course.

But, thirdly and lastly, the main foundation of this truth is still behind, and that is, Psalm xvi. 10. compared with Acts ii. 31. David saith, For thow wilt not leave my soul in hell ; neither wilt thou suffer thine holy One to see corruption. These words doth St. Peter in the Acts apply to our Saviour, chap. ii. 27 and 31, saying, that David sezing this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption: which to understand aright, we must consider how St. Peter is here handling the great point of the resurrection and ascension of the Lord Christ. And in treating of the resurrection, to satisfy all scruples that might arise upon his delivery of so great a mystery, he tells us from whence both the essential parts of his human nature arose, or were raised up: his soul, that was raised out of hell, and his body from the grave : for, saith he, His soul was not left in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption. His soul went indeed to hell, but it was not left there: his body was carried to the grave, but it did not see corruption there. And so there is no place can be a clearer proof of any, than this is of this truth, that the soul of Christ, when separated from his body, was in hell. For if it was not left there, but raised

nued for a while amongst the dead, or in hell, before his resurrection : Nunc autem, saith he, tribus diebus conversatus est ubi erant mortui,

uemadmodum prophetia ait de eo, Dera riopstnd est Dominus sancto- rum mortuorum suorum eorum qui ante dormierunt in terram stipula- tionis, et descendit ad eos extrahere eos et salvare eos, et ipse quidem dominus, Quemadmodum ait Jonas in ventre ceeti tres dies et tres noctes mansit, sic erit filius hominis in corde

terre. Sed et apostolus ait, Ascendit autem quid est nisi quia et descendit in inferiora terre ? Hoc et David in eum prophetans dixit, Eripuisti ani- mam meam ex inferno inferiori. Iren. ady. heres. 1. 5. c. ult. [c. xxxi. PP. 33° 331-]

b oss? cond Lia arto, And who hath descended into the abyss of hell? Rom. x. 7. Syr.

¢ V, Theophyl. [p. 108.] et Bucer, [p- 416.] in loc.

ART.

126 Of the going down of Ohrist into Hell.

thence at his resurrection, certainly it was there before his resurrection ; it being impossible it should be raised thence if it was never there. It is certain therefore that the soul of Christ was in hell before his resurrection, and as certain it was not there before his death and crucifixion. For before. that time his soul was in his body, and both on earth; and therefore it cannot be otherwise understood than that after he was crucified and dead, his body was carried to the grave, and his soul to hell: yet so as that the one was not left in hell, neither did the other see corruption in the grave; for within three days after they were both raised up again, the one from hell, and the other from the grave, as St. Peter in this his sermon declares, and the immediately succeeding article asserts.

But as there is no truth but hath been oppugned, so there is no place of scripture but hath been eluded; yea this very place which in itself is as clear as the meridian sun, hath been obscured by false glosses; some labouring much to persuade us, that the word here translated sou/ signifies no more than a body, or his person; and the word translated hel/, no more than the grave. But let such consider, first, whether it be not a certain rule always to be followed in the interpretation of scripture, to expound every word in its most usual and com- mon signification, if the place will as well bear it, rather than force an unusual sense upon it? I confess the word 4nephesh

@ The word which the Psalmist Targum, yx2nn xd mp dy dram

useth is p32, that which the apostle expresseth it by is yruvyx7, and it can- not be denied but that they both in scripture may sometimes very pro- perly be translated a body, yea, a carcass, sometimes a person con- sisting both of body and soul: as for the first, that it sometimes sig- nifies a body, or carcass, we may see in those words, 12nn xd wHrd wriw) mwas, You shall not make any cutting in your flesh for the dead, as we render it, Lev. xix. 28, where the Greek also renders wb3 by wux7, kal evropidas od moumoere emi spuyn €v T® oapate tuov, i. e. as On- kelos hath it in his Paraphrase, or

y)2033, et lesionem super mortuum non facietis in carne vestra. So that wb) is rendered by n°n in Onkelos, and by n’o> wb in Jonathan’s Tar-

gum. And so the Arabic, Chaco

“for the dead.” And indeed the sense will not bear any other signifi- cation: so 82° 8> nD MWD? >> dy, Gr. Kal én réon Woxf TeTeheUTN= kuia ovK eioeXevoera, Lev. xxi. 11, that is, as our translation hath it; “‘ neither shall he go in to any dead body.” And so in the first verse of the same chapter, P32 NOD Nd WH. Gree. év rais uyais ob puavOncov- Tat ev T@ Over ai’tGv: where WP?

Til. Of the going down of Christ into Hell. 127

in Hebrew may sometimes signify no more than a body with- out a soul, sometimes both soul and body in one person; but where there is one place where it is taken in that sense, there are at the least twenty wherein it signifies no more than the soul. And because it sometimes signifies the body, must we always translate it so? This is just as if because ¢erech in some few places signifies to cwrse, we should always translate it so. But again, grant the word may signify no more than the body, here it cannot be taken in that sense, for his body is after expressed by another word plainly signifying flesh. His soul was not left in hell, saith the apostle, neither did his Jlesh see corruption. Where it is plain that the word used for his soul, and that for his body, denote two several things. Again, we cannot take this, but we must take the other word hades in its unusual sense too: for as nephesh doth but rarely signify the body, but most commonly the soul; so doth hades most commonly denote the receptacle of souls, but very rarely, if ever, the receptacle of our bodies. And what a ridiculous thing is it to force such far-fetched significations upon words, when the literal sense is not dissonant from, but consonant

Onkelos renders by n, “ the dead ;” Jonathan by n’n7 w3 13, “ the man that is dead :” the Syr. |Aaso? Laaa, “the soul that is dead,’ and the

Arabic also by Circ, “ the dead.”

So it is taken also, Num. v. 2. vi. 6, 11. Hag. ii. 14: and it is some- times also put for the whole man, as Moyo wnt wei AnD, Gr. eEodoOpevOnaerar 7 Wux7 ekelvn €K Tov yévous avrijs, Gen. xvii. 14: that is, as Onkelos renders it, NW28 noon, and Jonathan, 8107 XW) 12, “that man, or that person, shall be cut off from his people.” So also Gen. xii. 5. c. xlvi. 26. and else- where.. And this the word signifies, either by a synecdoche partis, the part being put for the whole, as An- selmus Laudunensis, Lyranus, and others think; or by a metonymy, whereby the thing contained is put for the thing that doth contain it ; as St. Augustine, Anime nomine corpus solum posse significari modo

quodam locutionis ostenditur, quo significatur illud quod continetur per illud quod continet. August. Epist. ad Optat. [190. 19. vol. II. Pp. 705. ; :

€ That 772 doth sometimes sig- nify to curse, as well as to bless, is plain ; for it is said, And Job said, It may be my sons have sinned, 02252 m’m>x 12925, that is, as we render it, and cursed God in their hearts, Jobi.5. Syr. Jad aw 30: And the Arabic, asI§ Vpn a9

i.e. “ And cursed, reproached, or spoke evil against God ;” Gr. xaxa évevonaay mpos Gedy. Chald. 13°39) » 21p, And provoked God to anger. And it cannot but be taken so in this place, even for cursing rather than for blessing, this being a duty, not a sin; whereas it is a sin, nota duty, which the word is here used to express. And in this sense also is it used, Job i. 10. ii. 5, 9. 1 Reg. XXl. 10, 13.

128 Of the going down of Christ into Hell. Arr.

to all the other scriptures ? Certainly this is to turn the word of God all into allegories, synecdoches, and other tropes and figures. Lastly, it is not unworthy our observation, that it was the same St. Luke that wrote the Gospel who also wrote the Acts of the Apostles; and it is not very probable that he would use the word hades to signify the place of torments in his Gospel, Luke xvi, and I know not in what sense here in the Acts. And they that would put this sense upon the words must pretend to a far greater knowledge and skill in the interpretation of the scripture, than most or all the Fathers of the primitive church had, who generally trans- lated and expounded the words in a common and usual sense, That his soul was not left in hell, neither did his flesh see corrup- tion. And therefore we cannot but acknowledge, that though this doctrine be not verbally contained in the scripture, yet it may, by necessary consequences, be deduced from it ; and so cannot but be received as one of those great truths which the most high God hath been pleased to make known to us in his holy scriptures.

From scripture, if we proceed to reason, we may argue thus. The soul of Christ, after its separation from the body, and before his resurrection from the dead, was either in hea- ven or in hell; but it was not in heaven, therefore it must needs have been in hell. First, that it was in one of these two places I take for granted, being now reasoning against such as rightly deny all third places whatsoever appointed for the reception of souls when forced from their bodies, distinct from those two. And as for-limbus patrum, purgatory, and the like, we shall prove hereafter that they are human fancies, rather than divine truths. But the great question here to be agitated is, whether Christ’s soul, when breathed from his body, went to heaven or no? For certainly, if it did not go to heaven, we need no more arguments to prove it went to hell, there being no other place it could go to. Therefore, second- ly, that the soul of Christ when separated from his body did not immediately go up to heaven, I think will easily be granted by such as do but seriously, and without prejudice, consider these things: First, that the Lord Christ, both while living and when dying, was still accounted as a sinner ;

Ill. Of the going down of Christ into Hell. 129

though he had no sin inherent in him, or committed by him, yet he had sin imputed to him, and laid upon him; yea, so far, as that he is in plain terms said to be made sin for us, as well as we are made the righteousness of God in him. And hence it is, that bearing the weight (though not doing the work) he received the wages of sin, death. And he thus dying as a sinner cannot in reason be thought to go whither saints, but whither sinners go when dead. His body, that was laid where the bodies of sinners are, in the grave; and so his soul, it is fitting that should go whither the souls of sinners go, to hell; and that he that died for sin should go to the same place whither such go as die in it. Not to be tormented there as sinners are, because he had not committed sins here as sinners had; but only he having taken our nature upon him, and satisfied for our sins in his death and passion; and it being three days before his soul and body, when once sepa- rated, were to be united together again, he suffered his body to be laid so long under the earth; in the meanwhile his soul, that went down to hell, and there remained all that time, not to be tormented, for he had already suffered for us whatsoever the law of God could exact of us; but, first, that he might undergo the state and condition of a dead, as well as of a living fsinner; and so, secondly, that he might give us security for our pardon and redemption from hell. For, seeing he was even in the Devil’s mouth, yet that roar- ing lion could not prey upon him; seeing he was in hell itself, yet could be kept there no longer than just as himself pleased ; we may be assured he had conquered and overcome

f Impleta est scriptura, que dicit, condition of a dead, as well as living

Et cum iniquis reputatus est, quod et altius intelligi potest, dicente de semetipso Domino, reputatus sum cum descendentibus in lacum, factus sum sicut homo sine adjutorio inter mortuos liber, vere enim reputatus est inter peccatores et iniquos ut de- scenderit ad infernum. Hieron. in Isa. lili, 12. [vol. IV. p. 624.) And this is one of the reasons that Ful- gentius gives of his descent, even that he might go where sinners after death used to go, and so be in the

sinner. Restabat ad plenum nostre redemptionis effectum, ut illuc us- que homo sine peccato a Deo sus- ceptus descenderet, quousque homo separatus a Deo peccati merito ceci- disset, i.e. ad infernum, ubi solebat peccatoris anima torqueri, et ad se- pulchrum ubi consueverat peccatoris caro corrumpi; sic tamen, ut nec Christi caro in sepulchro corrum- peretur, nec inferni doloribus anima

[…]

130 Of the going down of Christ into H ell, Art.

the Devil for himself, and in himself for us, who are but as so many members of himself; and thus by his descending thither he hath freed us for ever coming thither, or remaining there. But, thirdly, his soul, I suppose, did primcipally go to hell, and remained there whilst his body was in the grave, that so it might be in a state of humiliation, as well and as long as his body. His body was brought to the lowest place it could possibly be brought to, even to the grave; and so was his soul brought too to the lowest place it could possibly be brought unto, even to hell.

And this leads me to the second reason why we are not to think that the soul of Christ went not to heaven but to hell ; because, if his soul had ascended to heaven, as his body descended into the grave, then one part of his human nature had been exalted, whilst the other had been debased. For his soul, that would have been shining in the highest heavens, whilst his body was lying under a piece of earth ; and so this would have been in a state of humiliation, whilst the other was in its state of exaltation. By which means, at that time he would have been wholly in neither state, but partly in both. And so most of the systems of divinity that ever were made, teaching only a double state of Christ, the one of his humiliation, the other of his exaltation, must be changed, and a third state added, partly of exaltation, partly of humi- liation. But that needs not, for certainly Christ was never

& Hoc autem ideo factum est, ut

ex aliquo labore, et dicit, parce tibi, per morientem corporaliter carnem

[…]

utere, nam si non feceris egrotabis; tu autem si feceris salvus eris, recte dicis medico liberasti me ab egritu- dine, non in qua jam eras, sed in . qua futurus eras. Nescio quis ha- bens causam molestam, mittendus erat Im careerem, venit alius, defen- dit eum, gratias agens quid dicit ? Eruisti animam meam de carecere ; suspendendus erat debitor, solutum est pro eo, liberatus dicitur de sus- pendio. In his omnibus non erant; sed quia talibus meritis agebantur ut nisi subventum esset ibi-essent : inde se reete dicunt liberari, quo per liberatores non sunt permissi per- duci. Ibid. [18. p. 913.] ,

ERY: Of the going down of Christ into Hell. 131

in more than one state at one time: when he was in a state of humiliation he was in a state of humiliation, not of exal- tation; when in a state of exaltation he was in a state of exaltation, not of humiliation. In one of which estates he purchased salvation for us, in the other he applies it to us. And therefore there can be no need of making a mixed estate, unless it be to build the error upon it, that Christ went not to hell, but heaven. And therefore, until it can be proved that there is more necessity than that of holding a mixed estate of Christ, wherein part of him for a time was exalted, and part of him debased, (which I believe can never be,) we cannot but maintain that the soul was in a state of humiliation, as well and as long as the body, and so not in heaven when this was upon earth, but under earth in hell, whilst his body was under earth in the grave. And when one rose they both rose; the soul being fetcht from hell to be united again to its body. But in few words, to put this question out of question, that the soul of Christ was not in heaven, (but therefore in hell,) in the third place, our Saviour himself, who best knows when he first ascended up to heaven, tells us plainly, the third day after his death, being the day of resurrection, that he was not then ascended up to heaven, saying to Mary, Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my father, John xx.17. Which certainly cannot be meant only of his body, but of his soul also, or rather both soul and body together. or if either of them, especially if his soul had been ascended to his Father, I cannot see how he could have said, J am not yet ascended to my Father, for the soul is the principal part whence the whole is denominated; and so, whatsoever the soul doth, the whole person is looked upon as doing: as when our souls go to heaven, we are said to go thither. And therefore might Christ, if his soul had been then in heaven, better have said, I am now descended from my Father, than J am not yet ascended to my Rather ; tor he had ascended and come down again. But we cannot, we dare not, but believe, that Christ meant really as he spake, that he then was not ascended to his Father, that the human nature which he assumed upon earth was not as yet gone up to heaven, but one part of it had been in hell, the other in the K 2

132 Of the going down of Christ into Hell. Arr,

grave; and being both joined together again, the whole human nature appeared visibly to Mary after his resurrection, as it had done before his passion. Whence we cannot but judge, that if we weigh things in the equal balance of un- biassed reason, we must needs believe that the soul of Christ, when breathed from his body upon his cross on earth, went not up to his crown in heaven, but stayed in hell until the time that it was to be tied to its body again, that as both had been all along together in a state of humiliation upon earth, so both might go together to his estate of exaltation in heaven.

And if from producing arguments for this truth we go on to consider such as have been produced against it, we shall not find any thing very material. Indeed there is scarce any thing that looks like an argument against it: only there are two scriptures, and but two only, that they make use of to batter it; and they are, first, the words of our Saviour to the thief, Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thow be with me in paradise, Luke xxiii. 43, But surely they were much busied that had not leisure to consider what it is to be with Christ in paradise, and so, what our Saviour meant when he pro- mised the thief he should be that day with him in paradise ; certainly he did not promise him that he ‘should be with his soul, or with his body, but with his Deity». It is that that

h Kst autem sensus multo expedi- tior et ab his omnibus ambiguitati- bus liber, si non secundum id quod homo erat, sed secundum id quod Deus erat dixisse accipiatur, hodie mecum eris in paradiso. Homo quippe Christus illo die secundum carnem in sepulchro, secundum ani- mam in inferno futurus erat; Deus vero idem ipse, Christus ubique semper est. Aug. epist. [187. 7. vol. II. p. 680.] ad Dardan. de pree- sentia Dei. Sicut ergo potuit recte dici Dominus gloriz crucifixus, cum ad solam carnem illa passio pertine- ret; ita recte dici potuit, hodie me- cum eris im paradiso, cum juxta humanam humilitatem per carnem in sepulchro, per animam in inferno illo die futurus esset, juxta divinam

vero immutabilitatem nunquam de paradiso, quia ubique est semper, recessisset. Ibid. he Qui enim homini penaliter pendenti et salu- briter confitenti ait: Hodie mecum eris in paradiso, secundum id quod homo erat, anima ejus ipso die fu- tura fuerat in inferno, caro in sepul- chro; secundum autem id quod deus erat, utique et in paradiso erat. Et ideo latronis anima a pristinis fascinoribus absoluta et illius mu- nere jam beata, quamvis ubique sicut ille esse non poterat, tamen etiam ipso die cum illo in paradiso poterat, unde ille qui ubique semper est non recesserat. Id. in Joh. tract. 111. [2. vol. III. par. ii. pp. 780, 781. ]

Til. Of the going down of Christ into Hell. 133

maketh paradise to be paradise; and if the thief had been that day with his soul, without his Godhead, or the enjoy- ment of the Divine nature, he could not be said to be in para- dise. So that to be with Christ in paradise is plainly no more than to be in heaven ; for he that is in heaven must needs be with Christ in paradise, and he that is with Christ in paradise must needs be in heaven. And so I believe was Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob with Christ in paradise before his birth and incarnation ; and so might the thief be immediately after his death and passion. For though his human nature was not there, yet his Divine nature was; and so the very same person that was at that time with the thief upon the cross was there, though the nature he had assumed into that person was not ; and that certainly was all our Saviour did ; more than which he could not promise to the thief when he said, that that day he should be with him in paradise.

The other place is that of St. Luke, where our Saviour, as he was giving up the ghost, crieth out, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit, Luke xxiii. 46. From hence they argue, that the spirit of Christ being committed into the hands of God, it must needs go to heaven. But I wonder whether the hands of God could not reach into hell as well as heaven: Jf I make my bed in hell, saith David, behold, thou art there, Psalm exxxix. 8. And why might not the spirit of Christ be com- mended into the hands of God, though it should go to hell, as well as if it should have gone to heaven! May we not com- mit our bodies into the hands of God, which perhaps may lie many years rotting in their graves, as well as our souls, that go immediately to him? Nay, certainly, seeing Christ went to hell, he may well be thought to have more need to com- mend his spirit into the hands of God, that he might protect and defend it in the midst of so many devils and hellish fiends. So that when our Saviour Christ saith, Father, into thy hands T commend my spirit, what is it more than this, Father, seeing my spirit is now going from earth to hell, [ commend it into thy hands, that thou mayest preserve it in hell as thou hast on earth? And so these words, instead of fighting against us, seem to be clearly on our side; and these two places failing,

vgs

134 Of the going down of Chvist into Hell. Arr. 1 know not of any other that can be brought to enervate this truth, that Christ descended into hell.

Neither is this a truth of yesterday’s growth, but almost all the Fathers of the primitive church have acknowledged and received it as an article of their faith, Though they much differ about the,end of his going, yet that he did go thither “they all agree. ~ Some said he went to preach, others to loose whom himself thought fit, others to triumph over his con- quered enemy the Devil, but all affirm that he did go to hell. But passing by many others, I shall only pack one jury of them that bring in their verdict for this truth.

And the foreman is Ignatiusi, who saith expressly, “ He descended into hell alone, but ascended with a multitude.”

The next is Clemens Alexandrinus, whose opinion was not only that he descended, but that he descended on purpose to preach to the spirits there detained, saying, *“ The Lord therefore descended for no other end, but only to preach the gospel, either to all, or else to the Jews only ;” and adds’, “ That at that time things were so ordered in hell, that all the souls that there heard the preaching, might either manifest their repentance, or acknowledge their punishment to be just, because they did not believe.”

The next is Tertullian, who saith™, “The God Christ, being also a man, and dying according to the scriptures, and being buried also according to the same, he satisfied this law also undergoing the manner of an human death in hell.”

The fourth is famous Athanasius”, who tells us, ‘“‘ Christ was buried ; his soul, that went to hell, but seeing it could not

meet

[…]

Noyno@or. Ibid. [p. 765.]

[…]

Il. Of the going down of Christ into Hell. 135

be held there, it was restored to his body, and so he rose again.”

The fifth is St. Hilary®, who saith, “ It is the law of human necessity that their bodies being buried, their souls should descend to hell; which descent the Lord did not refuse for the consummation of a real man, viz. that he might do for man whatsoever man was bound of necessity to do.”

The sixth is St. Ambrose’; “ Though the soul of Christ was in the abyss of hell, yet now it is not, because it is writ- ten, Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell.”

The seventh is St. Basil, who upon those words, But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave, (or from the hand of hell, as this Father translates it,) for he shall receive me, saith’, “* He clearly foretelleth the descent of the Lord into hell; who shall redeem this prophet’s soul with others that it may not remain there.”

The eighth is St. Hierome, who saith’, “ Hell is a place of punishments and of torments, where the rich man that was

_used to be clothed in purple was seen: whither also the Lord

descended, that he might loose those from prison that were bound there.” And agains: “ For none is delivered from hell but only by the grace of Christ, and therefore did Christ descend thither after his death. As the angel descended into the furnace at Babylon to deliver the three children, so did Christ descend into the furnace of hell, where the souls of the just were shut up.”

© Humane ista lex necessitatis éxei. Basil. in Psal. xlviii. al. xlix.

est, ut sepultis corporibus ad inferos anime descendant, quam descensio- nem Dominus ad consummationem veri hominis non recusavit. Hilar. Enar. in Psal. cxxxviii. [22. p.514.]

p Ipsa anima Christi etsi fuit in abysso, jam non est, quia scriptum est, non derelinques animam meam in inferno. [42. vol. II. p. 713-]

[…]

Ambros. de incarn. ¢. 5..

[vol. I. p. 247.]

r Infernus locus suppliciorum at- que cruciatuum est, in quo videtur Dives purpuratus, ad quem descen- dit et Dominus, ut vinctos de car- cere dimitteret. Hieron. in Isa. c. xiv. [vol. IV. p. 250. |}

8s Nemo enim ab inferni sedibus liberatur, nisi per Christi gratiam. Eo igitur post mortem Christus de- scendit. Ut angelus in cammum Babylonis ad tres pueros liberandos descendit, ita Christus ad fornacem descendit inferni, in quo clause jus- torum anime tenebantur. Id. in Ecclesiast.

136 Of the going down of Christ into Hell. Art.

The ninth is Macarius, who lived before the five last cited 5 and in his disputation in the first general council of Nice affirmedt, “ After death we are carried into hell. This also did he (Christ) take upon himself, and descended willingly into it. He was not detained there as we are, but he descended.”

The tenth is Fulgentius, who thus delivereth his opinion in this particulare : “ But the humanity of the Son of God was neither wholly in the grave nor wholly in hell, but as to his real flesh, Christ being dead lay in the grave, but in his soul Christ descended into hell, and in the same soul returned from hell again to the flesh he had left in the grave.”

The eleventh is Anastasius Sinaita*, who avers the self- same thing with him: “ The grave truly received his body only, but hell his soul only.”

The twelfth and last is St. Augustine, who, though in time he was before the two last named, shall bring in his verdict after them: and his opinion isy, “ That if those words, This day shalt thou be with me in paradise, be spoken of the hu- manity which the Word of God assumed, paradise is not there to be thought to be in heaven. For the man Christ was not that day to be in heaven, but in hell as to his soul, and in the grave as to his body,” And again”: “ And that the

[…]

” Humanitas vero Filii Dei nec tota in sepulchro fuit, nec tota in inferno ; sed in sepulchro, secundum veram carnem Christus mortuus ja- cuit, et secundum animam ad infer- num Christus descendit, et secun- dum eandem animam ab inferno ad carnem quam in sepulchro relique- rat, redut. Fulgent. ad Thrasimund. 1. 3. [p. 140.]

[…]

y Si ergo secundum hominem quem Verbum Deus suscepit, pu- tamus dictum esse, hodie mecum eris

in paradiso, non ex his verbis in ceelo existimandus est esse paradisus, Neque enim ipso die in ccelo futurus erat homo Christus ; sed in inferno secundum animam, in sepulchro autem secundum carnem. Aug. Epist, ad Dardanum, [187. 5. vol. II, p. 679.]

\ III. Of the going down of Christ into Hell. 137

Lord being put to death in the flesh came to hell is clear ; for none can contradict either that prophecy that saith, Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, which lest any one should under- stand otherwise, the same Peter expoundeth in the Acts of the Apostles; nor those words of the same Peter, whereby he asserteth, that he loosed the pains of hell, of which it was impossible he should be held. Who therefore but an infidel can deny that Christ was in hell?” And that it ought to be received as one of the principal articles of our faith, the same Father teacheth us, saying, *“ Wherefore let us hold firmly what faith hath received upon the surest grounds, that Christ died, according to the scriptures, and was buried, and rose again the third day, according to the same; and the other things that are written of him, the truth being witness; of which also this is one, that he was in hell, having loosed the pains thereof, whereby it was impossible he should be held. Seeing therefore that scripture is so clear for it, seeing reason also subscribeth to it, seeing so little or nothing can be brought against it, seeing a whole jury of Fathers, besides others, give in their verdict for it, we cannot but conclude,

Notes

• The Articles composed an. Dom. 1552, being the fourth of king Ed- ward VI. expressed it thus: Nam corpus usque ad resurrectionem in sepulchro jacuit, spiritus ab illo emissus cum spiritibus qui in car- cere sive in inferno detinebantur, fuit, illisque preedicavit, ut testatur Petri locus, &c.
• Et Dominum quidem carne mortificatum advenisse in infernum satis constat ; neque enim contradici potest vel prophetiee que dixit, Quo- niam non derelinques animam meam in inferno, quod ne aliter quisquam sapere auderet, in Actibus Aposto- lorum idem Petrus exponit, vel ejusdem Petri illis verbis quibus eum asserit solvisse inferni dolores in quibus impossibile erat eum teneri. Quis ergo nisi infidelis negaverit fuisse apud inferos Christum. Id. Epist. ad Euodium, [164. 3. p. 574-]