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

History is the first thing, The case seems to be the ale with the doctrine of Christ’s descent into Hell, and many others; they were believed in an indefinite way, before they were publicly and for- mally professed, The passage of Augustin seems to be well known; © Quis ergo nisi infidelis negaverit suisse apud Inferos Christum ?”

This continued for some Centuries; perhaps, if we speak with respect to the Church at large, we may fay, till the beginning of the fifth Century; that is, as far as we are informed by the ancients. At length, the doctrine got to be inserted in Creeds, It is said to have been inserted as an antidote to the Apollinarian Heresy®, as it is inconsistent with the notion, that Christ had no Auman soul, and that the functions of the soul were performed by the Aces. Yet, though the Apollinarians had some affinity to the Arians, the doctrine of Christ’s de- scent into Hell does not seem to have entered into

| the a Lord King, Clap. 4 * d Art. 11. Se, vi. 5 YOL. 11. A A

370 BOOK IV. ART. 111. SECT. 1.

the Arian controversy. It was in some Arian Creeds before it was (seemingly) in any that were © ortho- dox; yet it was not to be called an Arian Doctrine, because several Arian Creeds omitted it. The Arian Presbyters, who write to Alexander Bishop of Alexandria“, have it not; neither is it in the Creed delivered by Arius and Euzoius to che Em- peror * Constantine.

It appears, that the descent of Christ into Hel! has been confounded with his burial. So that it has happened sometimes, that, where one of these Was inserted in a Creed, the other was omitted. Our Nicene Creed has the burial without the de- icent; and the Athanafiaun Creed has the descent without the burial.

As this may seem unaccountable, we will just mention here, that the words ux and «ng have been used in various senses. Fun has been some- times rendered the Body, as the context in some passages of the LXX fully allows. That it should

b. rendered Soul, will Ge obvious. Ads is several times in Scripture translated Grave, on account of the meaning of the sentence, in which it occurs; and it 18 frequently translated Hell: j u eis ods, then, may be construed according to these senses, either the Body in the Grave, or, the Soul in Hell; and therefore Fry who thought it meant the one, might think it could of mean the other; and con- sequently, if they made profession of the burial of Christ’s Body, might pats over the descent of his Soul into Hell. — Perhaps more satisfaction may be had with regard to uxn, as understood to mean the body, when we come to the Explanation.

Bishop

© Bingham, 10, 3. end. Phaelbn; Creed, p. 472. 1 edit. p Epiphanius, Art. 2 Sect. 6. e Socrat. Hist. 1. 19.

f Lev. xxi. I, 11. Numb, v. 3.—vi. 6, Thele x had better be configered in the Explanation.

Bishop Pearson, in his exposition of the® Creed,

lays, very truly, that © The first place we ind it“

(the Article of the descent into Hell) © used in, was the Church of Aquileia:” he means, about the year 400. Though | this is true, yet perhaps cau- tion may be required, lest it should induce us to think, that our first observation is ill - grounded: or, that the Doctrine was then invented (Voltaire), or not expressly acknowledged before. Husebius gives a very short explication of the Christian Faith, which he reckons very ancient, and says, he tran- slated it from the Syriac, as what had been given by St. Thaddzus to the people of Edessa: In this, we find xe eig To 90. And Lord King men- tions the Article or Doctrine as in a Creed of Epi- phanius*, and in an Arian Creed delivered to the Council of Ariminum, held under Constantius in 359.—Ryfinus does indeed mention, that it was uot in the Roman, nor in the Oriental Creeds in his time: on which we may just remark, that the Ro- man Church was not then so extensive as it was af- terwards: and that there might possibly be Orien- tal Creeds wnknown to Ruflinus, a Prespyter of Aquileia: and lastly, that the doctrine might be taught at many places, and even at Aquileia, before the time of Ruffinus.

Should this caution with regard to Bishop Pear- fon be thought unnecessary, yet it will be thought

right to say something of Bishop Burner, He has,

in his contents, . Ruffin first published this in the

Creed;” which must not give us an idea, that it

| | was * Opening of 5th Article.

h Euseb. 1. 13. cited by Bingham, 15 10. 4. end. Eusebius is placed in 315. On the Creed, p. 261.

A A 2

Her. lib. 3. Epiphanius is placed in 368. Ruffinus, in

[…]

• 3 — 8 — IE […] _ […] 9 ————— = 8 […] a — — 2 : — — 2 — * hn - hw […] 4 —— - = S -V 2 I — So […] x2 9 […] 2 […] 8-,- 4

—— — ä […] 2

— F —_— _ Fx — _ —

xx “ER = RE . — 2 . * —

— 2 — S —ů —

— - PaU_— - […] wh —— —

[…] r ———— ——

= - >_< — . —

—

— —⅛

372 BOOK iv. ART. 111. SECT. 11.

was not publicly rehearsed before: but only, that the first Book we find it in is Ruffin’s exposition ; which indeed is rightly expressed by Bishop Burnet afterwards!; where he owns, that Nuffn found the doctrine in the Creed of his own Church. — The {ame Prelate speaks ® as if Ruffinus confounded the Descent with the burial in his o opinion, whereas he held them to be distinct events; only he thought, that when any Church, which had the Descent, omitted the burial, it was because that Church con- founded the two together. —Bishop Burnet also

says, that though the “descent was in the Aquileian Creed, there was no * other Article in that Sym-

bol, that related to Christ’s urid, which does not seem accurate; as the word SEPULTUS is in Capital Letters, as part of the Creed expounded’.

11. The Doctrine under consideration was at first founded on some zexts, which have since been thought not intended to support it. — Eph. iv. 9.— Col. 11. 15.,—1 Pet. iii. 19,—The only Pillar, on which it now rests, is Acts li. 24—31. But, when we come to our Proof, I hope that we shall find that Pillar sufficiently strong, —It is probable, that controversy and discussion have reduced it into its Present thape. And I think there is an appearance ol ingenuousness and fairness in dismissing texts,

as It were, and retaining only one, at the same time

that the Doctrine is thought so effential a part of

the History of our Lord, that it 1s not to be omit- ted even in our /horreft Creed.

The more settled the general doctrine of Christ’s Descent into Hell was in the mind of any one, the

more

See alfo Bingham ; who gives “ sepultus, et descendit ad Inferna.“

BOOK IV. ART. 111. SECT. 11. 373

more he suffered his imagination to wander in

search of particulars : the idea of Marcion * was,

that Christ preached in Hell to the good spirits without success, as they suspected him; but that the damned spirits, confined by the Creator, Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, heard him, and were rescued. Other Divines asked gue/ions, and answered them according to their own fancies, Did Christ really descend ? to what place? in what manner! to what

beings? with what views? these questions might

admit a variety of answers. Philosophers had liberty

to get wrong by taking popular words in a philo-

sophical sense. Fudaizers might follow the Jewish traditions about Paradise and another world: — and,

to come nearer ourselves, we find, that men of gloomy and austere tempers, who conceived ill enough of the Deity to hold the Doctrine of ab- solute Reprobation, determined, that Christ went to the place of the damned, and suffered their pains; and that it was highly proper he should do so, in

order to complete the Redemption of Mankind —

Such were Calvin and Beza, and the other Divines of Geneva. Those of milder dispositions (I suppose)

held, that Christ went only to Paradise. And

possibly it might be a noble turn of thinking, which set others on maintaining, that Christ descended to Hell in order to friumpli over the Hosts of Satan and the powers of darkness.

But we should not entirely pass over the Limbus

Patrum; yet it is scarce worth while studying it, so as to get a precise idea, though it is irksome to lay down any thing incorrectly. Before the coming of Christ, there were the Patriarchis, and many well- meaning men; they surely could not be all damned; though we must not think, they were sent to ab- solute 1 Lardner’s Hær. Marcion, SeR. 18. AA 3

= Tx […] 4 . i=. EF — “IC 2 * wa * - 2 bt D £ © N Z 2 =o — 8 — : IS por” ; […] n […] - — . wa Wr_——— ASE x E — z- £ AC | — : =

— — h- —

a = —

— — : = . = . — 3 […] Z — — 0 * 2 . — = 2 - - X […] x * * 8 […] g — „* 2 — — CIS […] EE IL JEN ” — T7 — — 8 he — _- = — 2 — 5 […] : e — ms 8 = - […] ů — PI — : […] EE […] r […] _ - - — 2 - Sx - ==; — 2 I * _ 2 ”= — a = Ati […] a . […] : — - — _ -— —— moon nn ni — - = —— S . — 7 — : T.- =o a -2 — x: 5 […] - 2 — — 2 […] . […] 2 . . […] : I : _ — dn — - — _ […] - - —— TH 5 — - - — — - 7 2 tr x — . 7 — oo — 4 r 9 […] 2 — — - […] s — - — * a - […] _ […] . =-E _ _ _ _- = o - — — 1 * I […] - […] - […] _ — 2 - © 1 - […] 2 […] - […] . — . wa 8 . — —— 3 — — - = === r […] 2 — A […] 5 _ 1 C […] p — 8 Sw rl - — — 2 2 - _— — pl - K 7 - […] de — . […] . . […] SEE […] 1 4 […] T - […] . —ͤ— 5 […] - […] _ — bo […] 21 —

— —

—

ELDERS […] TRL

374 BOOK iv. ART. 111. SECT. 11.

solute Paradise: nor could they reside amongst vulgar, ordinary spirits; they must be, then, in a Limbus, an outer border, in the suburbs, (weou5em) ;

the Purlieus of Paradise. And Christ must have descended to Hell, in order to transport them from thence to a better place.—It would be hard too, that harmless infants, when they die, should go into a place of torment: and therefore this Limbus may supply a suitable accommodation for hem: though it be properly the Limbus Patrum. —So considerate and provident were some of the ancients in their - pious reveries!

The Article of 1552 differs from our. present one, in making the Doctrine more particular, and to be built upon a particular ert; so that no one could subscribe to it, who did not believe, that the Spirit of Christ, between the time of his Death and Resurrection, preached to the Spirits in Prison, and that 1 Pet. iii. 19. referred to Christ’s descent into Hell. The Leaders of the Church in the time of Queen Elizabeth seem to have been very wise in the alteration they made; and in leaving the Doctrine grounded on the Scripture at large, and on the nature of the thing : more especially as the text, of which every subscriber to the Articles was {supposed to form a judgment, is, by some”, ac- counted one of the most difficult passages of Scrip- ture.—It is possible, that the Puritans may have contributed to the alteration, as they were Caluin- its, and therefore probably adopted the notion of Calvin just now mentioned; that Christ went down to Hell, not to preach, but to redeem.

If we look into Strype’s Life of Archbishop Mit-

gift, we shall see, that the notions of Calvin and the Geneva Divines continued to be popular, and oc- casioned some disturbance; occasioned a breach in

ile r See Poole’s Synopsis B. Iv. Chap. xx1.

BOOK IV. ART. 111. SECT, 111. 37s

the Unity of Doctrine. Though no opintons appear

there, but such as have been already mn gn

it may be interesting and useful to read a page two, in which the disputes on this head are 42 scribed.— It may also afford a reason why Bishop

Pearson and Lord King treat so largely on this

subject.

The Aan n . out this Article, i in the 5

Apostles Creed of their new Liturgy.

111. I have now finished my History, and therefore will proceed to Explanation.— But, though our Article is expressed in general terms, and may therefore admit of several meanings, yet I will con-

fine myself to that, which seems to me the right

one; as it is the one now generally received.—It is here then declared, as what every Christian should

believe and profess, that the Humanity of Christ was

uniformly maintained, from the time of his death to the time of his Resurrection. As his Body was in the Grave, during that time, fo every thing happened to his fpiritval part, which is naturally incident to an. Our Church avoids all particu- lars, as to the meaning of Hell, its inhabitants,

&c; nay, does not so much as mention the So of Christ, only says, © He went down,” &c; yet,

as it Gm decisive, that the Descent is something diflinf from the Burial, we may well suppose, that by © He” is meant his So. As Christ” © was buried, fo also —“ he went down into Hell.” Were not the expression limited by the context, it might signify, either that his Body went down into the Grave, or that his Sou? went into the usual habitation of departed Souls, or both: and n buyn

ubru X%TECN £40 Tov ,n, admits of all these ute which

B. 111. Chap. Iv. Sect. 111. end. A. D. 1597. u Partic. the first halves of p. 502, and 504. A A 4

— > . 4 - Ef

_ r […] ’

A ” F_ —_— > — — — ror

Ad — re — ä i […] m —

— ES. ’- wr - Sen 2 . . * „ r […] 2 - - - = p D - […] x7 — — _ T - 7 — 2 _ — — . 8 - =” Ll Y 4 b 1 * = 1 bo lth. _ […] - — — _ — - 7 […] 2 — — i […] - […] ca - […] 8 1 = Aa — ——_— —

— — EIS — : — eg rn nn […] X Ds. =. - 4 - […] Sp […] . : F — BY Ne — — 2 —— === - — * 2 — — : : - — —

[…]

• ED

[…] : — : _ 2 […] So — © 2 7 […] 7 […] 4 — Ss . — - […] Tg ͤ —— 7 — — i - : * — x 5 * — . — . — i 5 — . r — — 1 8 _ 6 […] - […] : n […] a — 2 — - 3 […] 8 po […] 2 — — 2 ne. […] V- 2 […] 2 = ” g - _ 2 a - 2 * I _ FEI © IE EIS: ME SIE .. Ht * Ps . 8 a 3 — - E . y —

—= E *

EVER

—

—_— — a 2 = >- If: […] __ […] 3 — = 2 22 […] I 12 - — 8 -

[…] Inn

— —

— —v—ͤ— —

—_— 20 2 *

—

[…] —

2 E […] - o

376 BOOK Iv. ART. 111. SECT. 111.

which is the thing that is now to be shewn*. It

does not seem to me to be said quite accurately, that quxn means the Body, but it means the animal, the man?, the same as ipse, or as He in our Article; and therefore it may denote either part of the man, according to the crcumPances in which it is 1ntro- _ duced. Tbe case is the fame of the word or noun man, and its pronouns. I faw a dead man, does not mean a dead /oul; J have been conversing with a wise man,” does not denote a wise body. So un TereAeurnwic, as it means a dead man, may mean a dead Body, but that is not quite the same as that buyn properly means a body : we find eig u fwoav, Gen. ii. 7. and 1 Cor. xv. 45. If it be said, uyn primarily signifies soul, I do not deny it; it may signify first the animal Soul, then be put for the Man: Soul, in Euglisi, means the Man, in familiar language; when J went into Church, not a Soul was there.“ See Lev. xxiii. 30. Indeed, body sometimes stands for the whole man, as when we speak of somebody and nobody: but this is not carried on, so that these familiar words denote either part of the man: that is, Body is not used to signify Soul, nor Soul to signify Body. In Syriac ND * 1s used as a reciprocal pronoum, 1. e. for myself, itself, We * Mentioned, Sect. 1. ” No This remark may seem to be contradicted by Lev, xix. 28. where ers & signifies a dead body: (compare Deut. xiv. 1.) but my idea is this; the Jews had a number of things to observe with regard to the dead, or to dead men; and therefore the ex- pression for a dead max would occur frequently; and expressions, which occur frequently, always get /hortened: in a more formal way, the expression for one dead, or a dead man, was Yuxn TeTeAcvT1zvic ; but the long participle seems sometimes to have been omitted for convenience. z Masclef’s Grammar, Vol. 2. p. 145. 2 Hence, by the word © Hz,” in our Article, may be un- derstood the Soul of Christ; though the word As, 1 Cor. vi.

[…] v ——ů —

We have now only to apply to dns the general remark, that, when 4 word stands for any thing which is compounded, it may, in particular circum-

Rances, stand for either component part.—The true

sense of «Ins seems to be the habitation of man after

death; the habitation of a Body after death is the

Grave; the habitation of a Soul after death has un- fortunately no name in our Language; and that must cause the more words to be used in explana- tion; but I think, that what I laid down is now intelligible, that » uyn ee ads may either mean,

the

d The fad is, vxn sometimes is understood to signify

Bogy (Lev. xxi. 1, 11. Numb. v. 2.—vi. 6.)—sometimes Soul, In like manner «9s sometimes signifies, or is raten to signify, the Grave (as will appear by and by), sometimes the

receptacle of departed Sirits. — accounting for this fact is ano- ther business: every one must use his own solution. My con- jecture is this: in every language, when a thing consists of tvs parts, especially if it be not well understood, that word, which expresses the whole, may come to express ether part; as that part happens to be principally noticed. Thus, Man may mean either body or foul, as in a dead man, a wile man,“ or man is immor- tal.“ Also, the word, which expresses either part, may stand for the whole ; and, as signifying the whole, may, as before, denote either part :——as in, not a sol,” * somebody, nobody.” Thus 4vyn1 denotes first the Soul, then the Man, (Gen. xlvi. passim.) then the Man in that state, in which his soul is zr noticed; and fo may be said to signify Body. The fame reasoning applies to «Ing; only that is, I think, primarily the place of the dead man; after he disappears on earth. | e There is a difference, which seems neglected, between not having a word, in a modern language, answering to 49, and not having a word expressing the receptacle of departed Souls, — A word answering exactly and properly to ans would ex; ress the habitation of Man after Death, and fo include the recep- tacle of Bodies as well as of Souls. Lord King reckons 43n; to mean the receptacle of departed Souls; scarce correctly, in my opinion,

wn og Weg tt nn IE

[…] A […] - […] r — — 4 þ — — - —— OO […] - […] 4 AE T […] 2 - FS 2 A I Wo — — . —— — 2 — . i […] —

—— ＋ 5 […] : 7 2 - I 1 * cf - * Ss * Tonka — - […] 4 n oy. 2 - […] _ . — — 2 ET — 2 — _ —— Xi EE EW oe […] 6 — = 323 * . […] . […] ä […] 7

[…] —üü

— 8 […] M 2 […] STE —-„-— — ö 8 — . — . * - . — o = — 4a * = x 2 a | : romp ning —— er ——— — …w — oe „„

[…] OY ry — a 8 _ . - […] LE […] — : — —— —

A = =

378 BOOK. Iv. ART, 11 T. SECT. IV. the Body i in the Grave, or the Soul in the place of departed Souls, or both: that is, we Man in the fate of men after Death“. iv. Nothing farther seems to be wanting in the way of Explanation; therefore I wilt go on to the Proof. We have here, according to this explana- tion, only one proposition to prove.—* The Soul of Chlrist went into the ordinary receptacle of de- parted han Souls. — Now, though the Seripture were silent on this head, this might be presumed, in the same manner as that Christ 2 of the substance of his Mother: except indeed it appeared, that Christ was to put off human nature when he gave up the Ghost. But, as the contrary appears“, as to his state after his resurrection, either our propo- fition must be true, or Christ must have ceased to be man on his death, and have again become Man upon his Resurrection; which is a supposition not to be admitted without particular n and there- fore our proposition is true. But now let us examine Accs ii. 24.—3 1. and see, whether it does not prove what we want to demonstrate. Ver. 25. is not only “ concerning” Christ, but is spoken in his Person. Ver. 27. 1s part concerning what we call the Sou, and part about the Body: which appears plainly enough from the verse itself, though the expression for the Body, this holy one,” is the title of the whole man; but indisputably, in my opinion, from the resuming of the subject in ver. 31. where the word flesh is used. The words © soul in hell,” yn eig cov, cannot here (tor the same reason as in our Ar- tide) have any meaning as to the Body of Christ, or | the

©: Art, 11. Sect. xXxXVI.

BOOK IV. ART. 111. SECT. v. 379 the Grave. This appears, in some measure, from

Jun being translated S and anima in the 16th Psalm. Why is it not translated Body, or the dead, as in other places, but that the sense requires soul ? St. Paul, in Acts xiIi. 34—37. ; arm… only of the refurreftion, omits that part of the Prophecy,

which relates to the Soul; and mentions only what 15 liable to Corruption.

v. Voltaire says*, en effet, ni les Evan les,

ni les actes des Apocres ne disent que Jesus descendit dans Penfer.” I think we have shewn, that the Afts of the Apostles do fay, that Christ descended into Hell, or what is equivalent to saying so. It is not indeed i in the way of direct narration, but by an authoritative interpretation or application of a

Prophecy. And it must be owned, that the Evan-

gelisis do not relate this descent; not even * Luke, the Author of the Acts of the Apostles:

is not likely it should be related in the E ood — But yet I apprehend, we have sufficient * tion to build our doctrine upon. — The Descent

into Hell is an event, of which the Evangelists

could not possibly be witnesses, and therefore, that they do not relate it, is rather a proof of their ge- neral veracity, than of the falshood of our opinion: —we value their testimony, because they speak #s what they have known. And they have the greater right to our esteem, if (when it can be) they for- bear to speak what they have not known. — Indeed,

the miraculous conception is an event, which the sacred Historians. could know only by immediate Revelation; but it is one, on which fo much de- pends, that we cannot conceive how they could have been left ignorant of it. With regard to the: Descent into Hell, it seems to me more salisfactory [0 f Vol. 24. quarto, p. 430. 5 John. il, 11. XV. 27. xix. 35. Luke i. 2.

— * - 2 — * 4 SS . ”= He 4 5 . * _ […] a = - […] 4 — — ns = ä […] 25 — 3 — nn […] . - - a —C_> 2 […] 2 2 7 = BI - — — - […] 8 — 2 ** — _ - S. 2 […] P 2 […] _

. pn on, 2 ** - —— = - 2 1 1 […] 2 — — 2 — 7 2 — 2 * — . […] I 7 * 3 2 8 _ […] Lat i, —— — *

— — 8 […] 2 […] - — - —- apt. ——— - r […] E * — - to 5 5 7 […] N P. […] 2 […] S 12 — LEES EE 4 - […] _ — ä — nn DE,

— 9 […] 2 8 a _ — - - […] Ä […] - EE ACNE ESI Co AE — — mere men W_= = 3 […] 8 es

[…] 2

— — >.

— en

— —INET=_ —

[…] Pa 4 A

Fo […] a *

r 7 —— I […] . 2 * WV © na.

380 BOOK iv.

to be informed of it by an application of a pro-

phecy, than by a Relation of /uch a fact.

vi. After the proof comes the Application. — And first, we are to consider, in what sense a think-

ing man can z0w give his ent to the Article under consideration. The principal nicety is this; may a

person subscribe to the assertion, that Christ went down into Hell, who only believes, that his foul went into the receptacle of departed Spirits? —I ap- PRO he may, for the following reasons. Any sense, which is agreed upon between the

Person who makes and the person who receives the declaration, may be considered as a right sense. —

And those, who may be looked upon as receiving a declaration in our present case, are the generality of learned and judicious men in our Church: what they agree upon may be looked upon as the sense

of the Church, and the Church may be considered

as receiving a meaning, which is offered to them,

and accepted, though | taciily, Now, since Bishop Pearson’s exposition of the Descent into Hell, all other eminent writers have agreed with him, and adopted his opinion, which, I think, agrees with ours.—/Hhitby does this Fand Dr. S. Clarke; and Bishop Burnet.

2. Supposing our construction of going down into Hell was not known to the compilers of our Articles, yet they are not to be supposed to have made Articles so as to preclude improvements; or

new solutions of difficulties*. 3. It being evidently

the intention of our Church to frauslate &qͤns, and

there being no word in Euglisi, French, or Dutch’,

answering to it, the subscriber must have a greater liberty in tran/lating it for himself. At present, for Want

b B. 111. Chas, V11. Sect. 111, lv. Powell, P. 35. i Sermons, Vol. 5. 8 vo. Ser. 1 1

& B. 111. Chap. 1x, Sect. XI, I Lord King, Chap. 4.

’ BOOK iv. ART, 111. SECT. VI. 381

want of such a word in English, our translation appears unsteady; sometimes the word grave is put

for it, sometimes the word Hell. — 4. But, though

there is this variety, our sense of ans will make the paslages, in which it is differently translated, per- fectly consistent. In 1 Cor. xv. 55. it is Grave in the text, and Hell in the margin; O grave, where

is thy victory?” —In Matt. xvi. 18. we have © the

Gates of Hell shall not prevail,” &c. Whereas in Isaiah xxxvili. 10. the fame words are translated the gates of the Grave. In Psalm Ixxxix. 48. we have the word grave in our Bible, and the word Hell in our Book of Common Prayer. Shall he deliver his Soul (ox) from the hand of the Grave?” —we may allo compare Prov. xxx. 16. where one of four things never satisfied is © the Grave,” —with Prov. xxvii. 20. Hell and destruc- tion * are never full. Luke xvi. 23. ment ions

inhabitants of «9s, who are good and bad; — Abra-

nam who was happy, and the rich man who was

tormented; though a xaopa was between them. And

Rev. xx. 13, 14. when © death and Hel!” (or the Grave, in the margin) had “ delivered up the dead

which were in them,“ still these dead were to be &* judged, every man according to their works.” —

Adu therefore does not imply the goodness or bad- ness of its inhabitants; nor can it in our sense, as the habitation of man * after death. It seems to

comprehend

m To find these two passages in the LXX, look first between Chap. xxiv. and xxv; and then, after Chap. xxv. Prov. xxx. 16. in Mill’s Sept. 12mo, appears p. 198; and Prov, xxvu. 20, appears page 203.

n Parkhurst published his Greek Lexicon in 1769, and his Hebrew one in 1778 if one compares his 4th sense of vyy and his first sense of & n, with his sixth sense of £254 and his sixth sense of OX, it looks as if he had changed his opinion in the nine intermediate years: and thought Pf. xvi. 10, and

Acts ii. 27. related more to the Soul, at last, than he had done before, I 0 |

[…] 2 emmy

• […] 1 : […] ES pron”

On 2 […] 223 3 ů — >

[…]

——

4 * — - — — 2 […] ꝑ […] - […] _ […] : — . * 2 = X x = — 4 — . nk 8 Py - > 1 * 29 - — * 2 8 4 — — K Pp […] : F £ TINO — = ang wt […] oe —-—-T!̃ . —- — F —— — DS — - - — — 5 […] V cx […] - * — he 8 […] . « 4 . D 8 ix” 2» Sr […] 2 — - = - —

:

ls

Sy +

comprehend Paradise (sometimes called Abraham’s bosom) and Gehenna*% —and our judgment feces eee te by Heathen ? Authors.

5. A fifth reason why we may subscribe to this Article, though we do not understand the word Hell to mean the place of Torment, is this: * ad In- feros” is the expression in the Latin Article, which is reckoned authentic: ** Tuferi” seems to be used in an indefinite sense, for auy place, to which men go after Death, when they disappear; though in its _ etymology it implies some subterraneous place; it was probably first used when the fancy was, that every thing belonging to man was after death dis- posed of under ground a.— 6. When 1 fay, there is no word in Exglisi answering to Hades, I mean in English at this ime, or at the times when our Bible was translated, and our Articles composed. We are told, that the very ancient word Hell {Saxon, rather than English) had the sense, which we have affixed to «dns; and this might always prevent ano

ther word from being used in that sense

| Bishop Burnet gives three senses of the Descent into Hell; 1st. Going to preach to the Spirits in prison. 2d. Burial. 34. Our sense; and thinks 1

person

o Pr. 8. Clarke? s 14th Ser, Vol. 5 8 p See Pearson on the Creed; Nicholls on this Article: Or- merod’s Remarks on priestley 3 14th Sect, p. 12, &c,—and Parkhurft’s Lexicons.

Children are dug out of the Parsley-bed : the Parfsley-bed before an human Being appears; the Inferi after he disappears : both underground: out of fight: Plaim cxxxix. 14. about the Body being formed in the lower parts of the earth, is to be understood in this negative indefinite sense, and means only, invifibly formed.

r See Lord King, Chap 4. p. 194. Parkhurk under z9n;.

Introduction: see Contents, £52

[…] Is

[…] 7 = 4 Ly

= ett WE —ę 22 ———— —— . Eh a — 3A = 3-2: — 2 : […] .

BOOK IV. ART. 111. SECT. VII. vII I. 383

person may subscribe in any of them; but I think I could not subscribe in the second; as that would annihilate the Article, which says, as Christ “ was buried, fo also he went down into Hell.”

vii. Mutual coucessions need not be considered on our present subject, as our Church is not engaged in controversy about it.

VIII. With regard to Improvements, [ will not propose any myself, but rather consider whether our language, about the soul and its local motion, can stand against refizements proposed by others. I have not here a proper occasion to go into a proof of the immateriality of the soul; for that 1 refer to Bilhop Porteus’s Sermons; at the same time I recommend the Pamphlet of Mr. Ormerod, en- titled, Remarks on the 14th Sect. of Dr. Priestley’s Disquisitions on Matter and Spirit. | I, for my own part, have no objection to using the word Soul, or to saying it descends, or it is in a place of Happiness. I only describe fac, which must be described very imperfectly.— A dead body has all its OO, &c. but hat is gone, which makes it an auimal; this is fact: why may I not fay, its foul * is departed ?—To prevent this some!ling from being thought to be omnipresent, I am apt to speak

as if it was somewhere; I am habituated to have a place for every thing, and every action, and so, as we conceive the Soul capable of happiness and misery, I say, this Soul is in a state, or place, of happiness; if I conceive it to enjoy happinels. Not that my oy is fritt; it is indifferent to me,

whether

e In what animate things differ from inanimate, rere 48. vxn—Bp. Pearson on Creed, p. 429, 4to. quotes this from Sallust De Diis et Mundo, c. 8. Cicero has, with regard to Souls, cum e corpore excesserint.“ Tusc. 1. 17. 11. efflare animam, ib. Sect. 9. - And a Mar is faid excedere e vita.— And * animus in /ocis cœlestibus habitaturus, Also, Ubi ubi fit ani- mus, certe in te elt,” Tusc. 1. 29.

[…] _

aig —

— — 3 […] *

[…] - — *

——

1 = 3 4 — _ […] A SD ——— ——— . —ů

r ———

—

—

—

—

by hd — oa 2 _ […] _ […] _ :

—— OS ——

of 14 1 6 : 4 1 wt 4 We? I I q we / y thy! I “Mhi TH 51 4 $5 e dy, 4 ”” 47 i wi 1 f in, : I i iÞ Ki T1 P 4h 1 d ‘F : 1 it 98 THE £1 WAS nh p v.16 þ ih BY Vs : 4 zi I q MS HEN % il 4 “x W W ! my 11.4 Mön U EN j f A ; 4 / l 1 ” : [ 144 Wi T ti “Ol ’ 48; : . i” 1 i i” l ; wr WALL N n jy ö it of ö at ’ 4 n. fy 1 : 1 1 q hs [ L 1 1 n 1 in A ne ’ U ? : g 1 vl! WW 1 a 4 ; g F 7 Ne $04 Is AH) 4 þ Th

— —

—

— — CL =IE IS ”* 72 2 * 12 as

CERES i eo T 2 —

—

2 ned mann ————ͤ—

— — (Ä —

384 BOOK iv. ART. 111. SECT. vIII.

whether Paul astends into Paradj ise, or Christ de- scends into «dns, which includes Paradise. To take locality of spirits exactly in the same sense with locality of bodies, is only for the lowest vnlgar*.

1 would adopt the 79tions of the most improved Philosophy, not that * falsely so called;” but, as to language, I would have popular Janguage to ex- press things really felt; though not philosophically viewed: and such language is pretty nearly as good as scientifical language. Iron is hot” expresses all facts, as well as Iron raises heat in me: —in like manner, you cannot use language more taken from things, than that the Soul is departed, and will be for ever in a state or place of torment, or bliss; though it is certainly wise not to decerve one’s self, by fancying, that one has more ideas affixed to

such language (or to any language), than one really has.

u 2 Cor. xii. 4. In “I Greek, I do not see any thing that certainly implies upwards, or ascent: d ge e is used with 2

and is; why not snatched away to, or, as far as, Paradise ? p. 233, Lord King cites from Cic. Tusc. 1. Anima cum è cor- pore excesserint, in sublime ferri.

x Use might here be made of the language concerning the mind, borrowed from sensible objects. The oul is 4e ectea, fy may it not descend ?

AR Tie m.

: (er did truly rise again from death, and

took again his body, with flesh, bones, and

all things appertaining to the perfection of Man’s nature, wherewith he ascended into Heaven, and

there sitteth, until he return to judge all men at the last day.

Before we enter upon tbe confidenition of this

Article, we may as well observe, that it does not

exactly conform to the idea of an Article given in the third * Book. An Article, as such, is not against

Infideis, but against such Christians as, allowing the Divine Authority of the Scriptures, interpret them

differently from ourselves. Yet, in some enume- rations, we cannot omit doctrines, which are es- tential and fundamental, merely because they have not been much contested, Here, 1n this fourth Ar- tide, we continue the History of Christ; which was probably put into several different Articles, because the arguments about the Divinity of Christ and his Incarnation, had best not be confounded with those about his Descent into Hell and his Resur- rection. Though an Article is not properly di- rected against Infidels, yet, if any arguments against them are introduced more conveniently and effec- tually under an Article than elsewhere; (i. e. in

ä | our Chap. Ix, Sect. x. „ Ibid, vor. II. my oP

„

2 — of Tr

— — ES […] —

— © 3 ed

— + - — —

SEG wid EE

ä — 3 —I—ꝓ ——

• — AED SF

_ I

EEE ̃ — bs ” —

ä

EE

— he ———= —

Notes

• Art. 111. opening. n Art. 111. end. _ 2 See Bp, Pearson, p. 472, first Edit. or 332, sixth Edit. „ Burnet on Art. 3. first paragraph.
• . in the expression God“ will raise up vs,” must denote the Body, (the soul is reunited not raised) ; and Virgil has the phrase animam sepulchro condere, (see Ormerod’s Remarks on Priestley, p. 13.) yet nens cujusque is est quilque. |
• With regard to Body or Soul being /e Epifetus might be read, concerning Socrates. 1. 29, 3, with Mrs, Carter’s Note. See Carter’s Epictetus, p. 86.
• This reminds one of Pope’s Indian, who was to go to | some distant invisible Island ; his faithful Dog to bear him com- pany.—— Essay on Man. Ep. 1, line 95, &c.