FROM AN
EXPOSITION OF THE CREED
by JOHN PEARSON, D.D.,
FORMERLY LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER
First Published 1659
[see original text for extensive footnotes]
ARTICLE V
- CHAPTER I
He descended into hell.
[see sections 17 to 19 for a summary]
1. The former part of this article of the descent into hell, hath not
been so anciently in the CREED, or so universally, as the rest. The
first place we find it used in was the church of Aquileia, and the time
we are sure it was used in the creed of that church was less than 400 years
after Christ. After that it came into the Roman creed, and others,
and hath been acknowledged as a part of the Apostles’ creed ever since.
Indeed the descent into hell hath always been accepted, but with a various
exposition; and the church of England at the Reformation, as it received
the three creeds, in two of which this article is contained, so did it
also make this one of the articles of religion, to which all who are admitted
to any benefice or received into holy orders are obliged to subscribe.
And at the first reception it was propounded with a certain explication,
and thus delivered in the fourth year of King Edward the Sixth, with reference
to an express place of scripture interpreted of this descent, That the
body of Christ lay in the grave until his resurrection; but his spirit,
which he gave up, was with the spirits which were detained in prison, or
in hell, and preached to them, as the place in St. Peter testifieth [1
Peter 3:19]. So likewise after the same manner in the creed set forth
in metre after the manner of a Psalm, and still remaining at the end of
the Psalms, the same exposition is delivered in this staff:--
“And so he died in the flesh,
But quickened in the Sprite:
His body then was buried,
As is our use and right.
“His spirit did after this descend
Into the lower parts,
Of them that long in darkness were
The true light of their hearts.”
But in the synod ten years after, in the days of Queen Elizabeth, the articles,
which continue still in force, deliver the same descent, but without any
the least explication or reference to any particular place of scripture,
in these words: As Christ died for us and was buried, so also it
is to be believed that he went down into hell [Article iii, 1562].
Wherefore being our church hath not now imposed that interpretation of
St. Peter’s words, which before it intimated; being it hath not delivered
that as the only place of scripture to found the descent into hell upon;
being it hath alleged no other place to ground it, and delivered no other
explication to expound it; we may with the greater liberty pass on to find
out the true meaning of this article, and to give our particular judgment
in it, so far as a matter of so much obscurity and variety will permit.
2. First, then, it is to be observed, that as this article was first
in the Aquileian creed, so it was delivered there not in the express and
formal term of hell, but in such a word as may be capable of a greater
latitude, descendit in inferma: which words, as they were continued in
other creeds, so did they find a double interpretation among the Greeks;
some translating inferna hell, others the lower parts: the first with relation
to St. Peter’s words of Christ, Thou shalt not leave my soul in hell [Acts
ii. 27]; the second referring to that of St. Paul, He descended into the
lower parts of the earth [Eph. iv. 9].
3. Secondly, I observe that in the Aquileian creed, where this article
was first expressed, there was no mention of Christ’s burial; but the words
of their confession ran thus, crucified under Pontius Pilate, he descended
in inferna. From whence there is no question but the observation
of Ruffinus, who first expounded it, was most true, that though the Roman
and Oriental creeds had not their words, yet they had the sense of them
in the word buried. It appeareth, therefore, that the first intention
of putting these words in the CREED was only to express the burial of our
Saviour, or the descent of his body into the grave. But although
they were first put in the Aquileian creed to signify the burial of Christ,
and those which had only the burial in their creed did confess as much
as those which without the burial did express the descent; yet since the
Roman creed hath added the descent unto the burial, and expressed that
descent by words signifying more properly hell, it cannot be imagined that
the CREED as now it stands should signify only the burial of Christ by
his descent into hell. But rather, being the ancient church did certainly
believe that Christ did some other way descend beside his burial; being
though he interpreted those words of the burial only, yet in the relation
of what was done at our Saviour’s death he makes mention of his descent
into hell, beside and distinct from his selpulture; being those who
in after-ages added it to the burial did actually believe that the soul
of Christ descended: it followeth that, for the exposition of the CREED,
it is most necessary to declare in what that descent consisteth.
4. Thirdly, I observe again, that whatsoever is delivered in the CREED
we therefore believe, because it is contained in the scriptures, and consequently
must so believe it as it is contained there; whence all this exposition
of the whole is nothing else but an illustration and proof of every particular
part of the CREED by such scriptures as deliver the same, according to
the true interpretation of them and the general consent of the church of
God. Now these words as they lie in the CREED, he descended into
hell, are nowhere formally and expressly delivered in the scriptures; nor
can we find any one place in which the Holy Ghost hath said in express
and plain terms that Christ, as he died and was buried, so he descended
into hell. Wherefore being these words of the CREED are not formally
expressed in the scripture, our inquiry must be in what scriptures they
are contained virtually; that is, where the Holy Ghost doth deliver the
same doctrine, in what words soever, which it contained and to be understood
in this expression, He descended into hell.
5. Now several places of scripture have be3en produced by the ancients
as delivering this truth, of which some without question prove it not;
but three there are which have been always thought of greatest validity
to confirm this article. First, that of St. Paul to the Ephesians
seems to come very near the words themselves and to express the same almost
in terms: Now that he ascended, what is it but that he descended first
into the lower parts of the earth [Eph. iv. 9]? This many of the
ancient fathers understood of the descent into hell, as placed in the lowest
parts of the earth; and this exposition must be confessed so probable,
that there can be no argument to disprove it. Those lower parts of
the earth may signify hell, and Christ’s descending thither may be, that
his soul went to that place when his body was carried to the grave.
But that it was actually so, or that the apostle intended so much in those
words, the place itself will not manifest. For we cannot be assured
that the descent of Christ, which St. Paul speaks of , was performed after
his death; or if it were, we cannot be assured that the lower parts of
the earth did signify hell, or the place where the souls of men were tormented
after the separation from their bodies. For as it is written, No
man ascendeth up to heaven, but he that descended from heaven [John iii.13];
so this may signify so much, and no more, In that he ascended, what is
it but that he descended first? And for the lower parts of the earth,
they may possibly signify no more than the place beneath; as when our Saviour
said, Ye are from beneath, I am from above; ye are of this world, I am
not of this world [John viii. 23]: or as God spake by the prophet, “I will
show wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath” [Joel ii.
30; Acts ii. 19]. Nay, they may well refer to his incarnation, according
to that of David, “My substance was not hid from thee when I was made in
secret, and curiously wrought in the lower parts of the earth” [Ps 139:15];
or to his burial, according to that of the prophet, “Those that seek my
soul to destroy it shall go into the lower parts of the earth” [Psalm 63:9]:
and these two references have a great similitude according to that of Job,
“Naked came I out of tmy mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither
[Job i. 21].
The next place of scripture brought to confirm the descent is not so
near in words, but thought to signify the end of that descent, and that
part of his humanity by which he descended. For Christ, saith St.
Peter, was “put to death in the flesh, and quickened by the spirit, by
which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison [1 Peter iii.
18, 19]; where the spirit seems to be the soul of Christ, and the place
at least separated from the joys of heaven: whether because we never read
our Saviour went at any other time, we may conceive he went in spirit then
when his soul departed from his body on the cross. This did our church
first deliver as the proof and illustration of the descent, and the ancient
fathers did apply the same in the like manner to the proof of this article.
But yet those words of St. Peter have no such power of probation, except
we were certain that the spirit there spoken of were the soul of Christ,
and that the time intended for that preaching were after his death, and
before his resurrection. Whereas if it were so interpreted, the difficulties
are so many, that they staggered St. Augustine, and caused him at last
to think that these words of St. Peter belonged not unto the doctrine of
Christ’s descending into hell. But indeed the spirit by which he
is said to preach was not the soul of Christ, but that Spirit by which
he was quickened; as appeareth by the coherence of the words, “being put
to death in the flesh, but quickened by the spirit, by which also he went
and preached unto the spirits in prison. Now that Spirit by which
Christ was quickened is that by which he was raised from the dead, that
is, the power of his divinity, as St. Paul expresseth it, “Though he was
crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God [2 Cor. 13:4]:
in respect of which he preached to those which were disobedient in the
days of Noah, as we have already shown [see p. 175 of On the Creed].
The third, but principal text, is that of David, applied by St. Peter.
For “David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my
face; for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved. Therefore
did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad: moreover also my flesh shall
rest in hope. Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither
wilt thou suffer thy holy one to see corruption” [Ps. 16:8-10]. Thus
the apostle repeated the words of the Psalmist, and then applied them:
He “being a prophet, and seeing this before, spake of the resurrection
of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see
corruption” [Acts ii. 25-27, 30, 31]. Now from this place the article
is clearly and infallibly deduced thus: if the soul of Christ were not
left in hell at his resurrection, then his soul was in hell before his
resurrection; but it was not there before his death, therefore upon or
after his death, and before his resurrection, the soul of Christ descended
into hell, and consequently the CREED doth truly deliver that Christ, being
crucified, was dead, buried, and descended into hell. For as his
flesh did not see corruption by virtue of that promise and prophetical
expression, and yet it was in the grave, the place of corruption, where
it rested in hope until his resurrection, so his soul, which was not left
in hell, by virtue of the like promise or prediction, was in that hell,
were it was not left, until the time that it was to be united to
the body for the performing of the resurrection. We must, therefore,
confess from hence that the soul of Christ was in hell; and no Christian
can deny it, saith St. Augustine, it is so clearly delivered in this prophecy
of the Psalmist and application of the Apostle.
6. The only question then remains, not of the truth of the proposition,
but the sense and meaning of it. It is most certain that Christ descended
into hell, and as infallibly true as any other article of the CREED; but
what that hell was, and how he descended thither, being once questioned,
is not easily determined. Different opinions there have been of old,
and of late more different still, which I shall here examine after that
manner which our subject will admit. Our present design is an exposition
of the CREED as now it stands, and our endeavour is to expound it according
to the scriptures in which it is contained. I must, therefore, look
for such an explication as may consist with the other parts of the CREED,
and may withal be conformable unto that scripture upon which the truth
of the article doth rely; and consequently, whatsoever interpretation is
either not true in itself, or not consistent with the body of the CREED,
or not conformable to the doctrine of the apostle in this particular, the
expositor of that CREED by the doctrine of the apostle must reject.
7. First, then, we shall consider the opinion of Durandus, who as often,
so in this, is singular. He supposeth this descent to belong unto
the soul, and the name of hell to signify the place where the souls of
dead men were in custody; but he maketh a metaphor in the word descended,
as not signifying any local motion, nor inferring any real presence of
the soul of Christ in the place where the souls of dead men were, but only
including a virtual motion, and inferring an efficacious presence, by which
descent the effects of the death of Christ were wrought upon the souls
in hell; and because the merits of Christ’s death did principally depend
upon the act of his soul, therefore the effect of his death is attributed
to his soul as the principal agent, and consequently Christ is truly said
at the instant of his death to descend into hell, because his death was
immediately efficacious upon the souls detained there. This is the
opinion of Durandus, so far as it is distinct from others.
8. But although a virtual influence of the death of Christ may be well
admitted in reference to the souls of the dead, yet this opinion cannot
be accepted as the exposition of this article; being neither the CREED
can be thought to speak a language of so great scholastic subtilty, nor
the place of David expounded by St. Peter can possibly admit any such explication.
For what can be the sense of those words, thou shalt not leave my soul
in hell, if his death were his descent, then is he descended still, because
the effect of his death still remaineth. The opinion, therefore,
of Durandus, making the descent into hell to be nothing but the efficacy
of the death of Christ upon the souls detained there, is to be rejected,
as not expositive of the CREED’s confession, nor consistent with the scripture’s
expression.
9. 10. The next opinion, [… that Christ experienced the torments
of hell, he refutes]
11. 12. [The opinion that the reference in the Creed is only to
the deposition of Christ's body in the grave, he refutes]
13. There is yet left another interpretation grounded upon the general
opinion of the church of Christ in all ages, and upon a probable exposition
of the prophecy of the Psalmist, taking the soul in the most proper sense,
for the spirit or rational part of Christ; that part of man which, according
to our Saviour’s doctrine, the Jews could not kill, and looking upon hell
as a place distinct from this part of the world where we live, and distinguished
from those heavens whither Christ ascended, into which place the souls
of men were conveyed after or upon their death: and therefore thus expounding
the words of the Psalmist in the person of Christ; Thou shalt not suffer
that soul of mine which shall be forced from my body by the violence of
pain upon the cross, but resigned into thy hands, when it shall go into
that place below where the souls of men departed are detained, I say, thou
shalt not suffer that soul to continue there as theirs have done, but shalt
bring it shortly from thence and re-unite it to my body.
14. For the better understanding of this exposition, there are several
things to be observed, both in respect of the matter of it and in reference
to the authority of the fathers. First, therefore, this must be laid
sown as a certain and necessary truth, that the soul of man, when he dieth,
dieth not but returneth unto him that gave it, to be disposed of at his
will and pleasure, according to the ground of our Saviour’s counsel, Fear
not them which kill the body, but cannot kill the soul. [Matt. x. 28].
That better part of us, therefore, in and after death doth exist and live,
either by virtue of its spiritual and immortal nature, as we believe, or
at least the will of God, and his power upholding and preserving it from
dissolution, as many of the fathers thought. This soul thus existing
after death, and separated from the body, though of a nature spiritual,
is really and truly in some place, if not by way of circumscription, as
proper bodies are, yet by way of determination and indistancy, so that
it is true to say this is really and truly present here, and not elsewhere.
Again, the soul of man, which, while he lived, gave life to the body
and was the fountain of all vital actions, in that separate existence after
death must not be conceived to sleep, or be bereft and stript of all vital
operations, but still to exercise the powers of understanding and of willing,
and to be subject to the affections of joy and sorrow. Upon which
is grounded the different estate and condition of the souls of men during
that time of separation; some of them by the mercy of God being placed
in peace and rest, in joy and happiness, others by the justice of the same
God left to sorrow, pains, and misery.
As there was this different state and condition before our Saviour’s
death, according to the different kinds of men in this life, the wicked
and the just, the elect and reprobate; so there were two societies of souls
after death, one of them which were happy in the presence of God, the other
of those which were left in their sins and tormented for them. Thus
we conceive the righteous Abel the first man placed in this happiness,
and the souls of them that departed in the same faith to be gathered to
him. Whosoever it was of the sons of Adam which first died in his
sins was put inot a place of torment, and the souls of all those which
departed after with the wrath of God upon them were gathered into his sad
society.
Now as the souls at the hour of death are really separated from the
bodies, so the place where they are in rest or misery after death is certainly
distinct from the place in which they lived. They continue not were
they were at that instant when the body was left without life; they do
not go together with the body to the grave; but as the sepulchre is appointed
for our flesh, so there is another receptacle or habitation or mansion
for our spirits. From when it followeth that in death the soul do4th
certainly pass by a real motion from that place, in which it did inform
the body, and is translated to that place and unto that society which God
of his mercy or justice hath allotted to it. And not at present to
inquire into the difference and distance of those several habitations (but
for method’s sake to involve them all as yet under the notion of the infernal
parts, or the mansions below), it will appear to have been the general
judgment of the church that the soul of Christ contradistiguished from
his body, that better and more noble part of his humanity, his rational
and intellectual soul, after a true and proper separation from his flesh,
was really and truly carried into those parts below where the souls of
men before departed were detained, and that by such a real translation
of his soul he was truly said to have descended into hell.
Many have been the interpretations of the opinion of the fathers made
of late, and their differences are made to appear so great, as if they
agreed in nothing which concerns this point; whereas there is nothing which
they agree in more than this which I have already affirmed, the real descent
of the soul of Christ unto the habitation of the souls departed.
The persons to whom and end for which he descended they differ in; but
as to a local descent into the infernal parts they all agree. Who
were then in those parts they could not certainly define; but whosoever
were there, that Christ by the presence of his soul was with them they
all determined.
15. That this was the general opinion of the church, will appear not
only by the testimonies of those ancient writers which lived successively,
and wrote in several ages, and delivered this exposition in such express
terms as are not capable of any other interpretation, but also because
it was generally used as an argument against the Apollinarian heresy, than
which nothing can show more the general opinion of the catholics and the
heretics, and had been little less than ridiculous to have produced that
for an argument to prove a point in controversy which had not been clearer,
than that which was controverted and had not been some way acknowledged
as a truth by both. Now the error of Apollinarius was, that Christ
had no proper intellectual or rational soul, but that the Word was to him
in the place of a soul; and the argument produced by the fathers for the
conviction of this error was, that Christ descended into hell, which the
Apollinarians could not deny, and that this descent was not made by his
divinity, or by his body, but by the motion and presence of his soul, and
consequently that he had a soul distinct both from his flesh and from the
Word. Whereas if it could have then been answered by the heretics,
as now it is by many, that his descent into hell had no relation to his
soul, but to his body only, which descended to the grace; or that it was
not real, but only virtual, descent, by which his death extended to the
destruction of the powers of hell; or that his soul was not his intellectual
spirit or immortal soul, but his living soul was not his intellectual spirit
or immortal soul, but his living soul, which descended into hell, that
is, continued in the state of death: I say, if any of these senses could
have been affixed to this article, the Apollinarians’ answer might have
been sound, and the catholics’ argument of no validity. But being
those heretics did all acknowledge this article; being the catholic fathers
did urge the same to prove the real distinction of the soul of Christ both
from his divinity and from his body, because his body was really in the
grave when his soul was really present with the souls below; it followeth
that it was the general doctrine of the church that Christ did descend
into hell by a local motion of his soul separated from his body, to the
places below where the souls of men departed were.
Nor can it be reasonably objected that the argument of the fathers was
of e2qual force against these heretics, if it be understood of the animal
soul, as it would be if it were understood of the rational; as if those
heretics had equally deprived Christ of the rational and animal soul.
For it is most certain that they did not equally deprive Christ of both;
but most of the Apollinarians denied an human soul to Christ only in respect
of the intellectual part, granting that the animal soul of Christ was of
the same nature with the animal soul of other men. If, therefore,
the fathers had proved only that the animal soul of Christ had descended
into hell, they had brought no argument at all to prove that Christ had
an human intellectual soul. It is therefore certain that the catholic
fathers in their opposition to the Apollinarian heretics did declare that
the intellectual and immortal soul of Christ descended into hell.
16. The only question which admitted any variety of discrepance among
the ancients was, who were the persons to whose souls the soul of Christ
descended, and, that which dependeth on that question, what was the end
and use of his descent. In this, indeed, they differed much, according
to their several apprehensions of the condition of the dead and the nature
of the place into which the souls before our Saviour’s death were gathered.
Some, looking on that name which we translate now hell, hades, or infernus,
as the common receptacle of the souls of all men, both the just and the
unjust, thought the soul of Christ descended unto those which departed
in the true faith and fear of God, the souls of the patriarchs and the
prophets, and the people of God.
But others there were who thought hades or infernus was never taken
in the scriptures for any place of happiness [Augustine], and therefore
they did not conceive the souls of the patriarchs or the prophets did pass
into any such infernal place, and consequently that the descent into hell
was not his going to the prophets or the patriarchs, which were not there.
For as, if it had been only said that Christ had gone unto the bosom of
Abraham, or to paradise, no man would have ever believed that he had descended
into hell; so being it is only written, Thou shalt not leave my soul in
hell, it seems incongruous to think that he went then unto the patriarchs,
who were not there.
Now this being the diversity of opinions anciently in respect of the
persons unto whose souls the soul of Christ descended at his death, the
difference of the end or efficacy of that descent is next to be observed.
Of those which did believe the name of hades to belong unto that general
place which comprehended all the souls of men (as well those which died
in the favour of God as those which departed in their sins), some of them
thought that Christ descended to that place of hades, where the souls of
all the faithful, from the death of the righteous Abel to the death of
Christ, were detained below, translated them into a far more glorious place,
and stated them in a condition far more happy in the heavens above.
Others of them understood no such translation of place, or alteration
of condition there, conceiving that the souls of all men are detained below
still, and shall not enter into heaven until the general resurrection.
They made no such distinction at the death of Christ, as if those which
believed in a Saviour already come should be admitted thither immediately
upon their expiration.
But such as thought the place in which the souls of the patriarchs did
reside could not in propriety of speech be called hell, nor was ever so
named in the scriptures, conceived, that as our Saviour went to those who
were included in the proper hell, or place of torment, so the end of his
descent was to deliver souls from those miseries which they felt, and to
translate them to a place of happiness and a glorious condition.
They which did think that hell was wholly emptied, that every soul was
presently released from all the pains which before it suffered, were branded
with the names of heretics; but to believe that many were delivered was
both by them and many others counted orthodox.
The means by which they did conceive that Christ did free the souls
of men from hell was the application of his death unto them, which was
propounded to those souls by preaching of the gospel there; that as he
revealed here on earth the will of God unto the sons of men, and propounded
himself as the object of their faith, to the end that whosoever believed
in him should never die, so after his death he showed himself unto the
souls departed, that whosoever of them would yet accept of and acknowledge
him should pass from death to life.
Thus did they think the soul of Christ descended into hell to preach
the gospel to the spirits there, that they might receive him who before
believed in him, or that they might believe in him who before rejected
him. But this cannot be received as the end, or was to effect the
end, of Christ’s descent; nor can I look upon it as any illustration of
this article, for many reasons. For first, I have already showed
that the place of St. Peter, so often mentioned for it, is not capable
of that sense, nor hath it any relation to our Saviour after death.
Secondly, the ancients seem upon no other reason to have interpreted this
place of St. Peter in that manner, but because other apocryphal writings
led them to that interpretation, upon the authority whereof this opinion
only can rely. A place of the prophet Jeremy was first produced,
that the Lord God of Israel remembered his dead, which slept in the land
of the grave, and descended unto them, to preach unto them his salvation.
But being there is no such verse extant in that prophet or any other, it
was also delivered that it was once in the translation of the Septuagint,
but rased out from thence by the Jews; which, as it can scarce be conceived
true, so, if it were, it would be yet of doubtful authority, as being never
yet found in the Hebrew text. And Hermes, in his book called the
Pastor, was thought to give no good authority, and in this particular is
most extravagant, for he taught that not only the soul of Christ, but also
the souls of the apostles, preached to the spirits below; that as they
followed his steps here, so did they also after their death, and therefore
descended to preach in hell.
Nor is this only to be suspected in reference to those pretended authorities
which first induced men to believe it, and to make forced interpretations
of scripture to maintain it, but also to be rejected in itself, as false
and inconsistent with the nature, scope, and end of the gospel (which is
to be preached with such commands and ordinances as can concern those only
which are in this life), and as incongruous to the state and condition
of those souls to whom Christ is supposed to preach. For if we look
upon the patriarchs, prophets, and all saints before departed, it is certain
they were never disobedient in the days of Noah; nor could they need the
publication of the gospel after the death of Christ, who by virtue of that
death were accepted in him while they lived, and by that acceptation had
received a reward long before. If we look upon them which died in
disobedience, and were in torments for their sins, they cannot appear to
be proper objects for the gospel preached. The rich man, whom we
find in their condition, desired one might be sent from the dead to preach
unto his brethren then alive, lest they also should come unto that place;
but we find no hopes he had that any should come from them which were alive
to preach to him. For if the living, who heard no Moses and the prophets,
would not be persuaded though one rose from the dead [Luke xvi. 31], surely
those which had been disobedient unto the prophets should never be persuaded
after they were dead.
Whether, therefore, we consider the authorities first introducing this
opinion, which were apocryphal; or the testimonies of scripture, forced
and improbable; or the nature of this preaching, inconsistent with the
gospel; or the persons to whom Christ should be thought to preach (which,
if dead in the faith and fear of God, wanted no such instruction; if departed
in infidelity and disobedience, were unworthy and incapacle of such a dispensation);
this preaching of Christ to the spirits in prison cannot be admitted either
as the end, or as the means proper to effect the end, of his descent into
hell.
Nor is this preaching only to be rejected as a means to produce the
effect of Christ’s descent, but the effect itself pretended to be wrought
thereby, whether in reference to the just or unjust, is by no means to
be admitted. For though some of the ancients thought, as is shown
before, that Christ did therefore descend into hell, that he might deliver
the souls of some which were tormented in those flames and translate them
to a place of happiness; yet this opinion deserveth no acceptance, neither
in respect of the ground or foundation on which it is built, nor in respect
of the action or effect itself. The authority upon which the strength
of this doctrine doth rely is that place of the Acts, whom God hath raised
us, loosing the pains of hell, for so they read it; from whence the argument
is thus deduced. God did loose the pains of hell when Christ was
raised; but those pains did not take hold of Christ himself, who was not
to suffer anything after death, and consequently he could not be loosed
from or taken out of those pains in which he never was: in the same manner
the patriarchs and the prophets, and the saints of old, if they should
be granted to have been in a place sometimes called hell, yet were they
there in happiness, and therefore the delivering them from thence could
not be the loosing of the pains of hell: it followeth, then, that those
alone which died in their sins were involved in those pains, and when those
pains were loosed then were they released; and being they were loosed when
Christ was raised, the consequence will be, that he, descending into hell,
delivered some of the damned souls from their torments there.
But, first, though the Latin translation render it so, the pains of
hell, though some copies and other translations, and divers of the fathers,
read it in the same manner; yet the original and authentic Greek acknowledgeth
no such word as hell, but propounds it plainly thus, whom God hath raised
up loosing the pains of death. Howsoever, if the words were so expressed
in the original text, yet it would not follow that God delivered Christ
out of those pains in which he was detained any time, much less that the
soul of Christ delivered the souls of any other, but only that he was preserved
from enduring them.
Again, as the authority is most uncertain, so is the doctrine most incongruous.
The souls of men were never cast into infernal torments, to be delivered
from them. The days which follow after death were never made for
opportunities to a better life. The angels had one instant either
to stand or fall eternally; and what that instant was to them, that this
life is unto us. We may as well believe the devils were saved, as
those souls which were once tormented by them. For it is an everlasting
fire, and everlasting punishment, a worm that dieth not [Matt. 25:41, 46;
Mark 9:44]. Nor does this only belong to us who live after the death
of Christ, as if the damnation of all sinners now were ineluctable and
eternal, but before that death it were not so; as if faith and repentance
were now indispensably necessary to salvation, but then were not.
For thus the condition of mankind before the fulness of time, in which
our Saviour came into the world, should have been far more happy and advantageous
than it hath been since [Greg. Great]. But neither they nor we shall
ever escape eternal flames, except we obtain the favour of God before we
be swallowed by the jaws of death. “We must all appear before the
judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in
his body [2Cor. v. 10]: but if they be in the state of salvation now by
virtue of Christ’s descent into hell which were numbered amongst the damned
before his death, at the day of the general judgment they must be returned
into hell again; or if they be received then into eternal happiness, it
will follow either that they were not justly condemned to those flames
at first, according to the general dispensations of God, or else they did
not receive the things done in their body at the last; which all shall
as certainly receive, as all appear. This life is given unto men
to work out their salvation with fear and trembling; but after death cometh
judgment, reflecting on the life that is past, not expecting amendment
or conversion then. He that liveth and believeth in Christ shall
never die; he that believeth, though he die, yet shall he live [John 11:25,
26]; but he that dieth in unbelief shall neither believe nor live.
And this is as true of those which went before, as of those which came
after our Saviour, because he was the Lamb slain before the foundation
of the world [Rev. 13:8]. I therefore conclude, that the end for
which the soul of Christ descended into hell was not to deliver any damned
souls, or to translate them from the torments of hell unto the joys of
heaven.
The next consideration is, whether by virtue of his descent the souls
of those which before believed in him, the patriarchs, prophets, and all
the people of God, were delivered from that place and state in which they
were before, and whether Christ descended into hell to that end, that he
might translate them into a place and state far more glorious and happy.
This hath been in the later ages of the church the vulgar opinion of most
men, and that as if it followed necessarily from the denial of the former;
he delivered not the souls of the damned, therefore he delivered the souls
of them which believed, and of them alone [Greg. Great], till at last the
schools have followed it so fully, that they deliver it as a point of faith
and infallible certainty, that the soul of Christ descending into hell,
did deliver from thence all the souls of the saints which were in the bosom
of Abraham, and did confer upon them actual and essential beatitude, which
before they enjoyed not. And this they lay upon two grounds: first,
that the souls of saints departed saw not God; and secondly, that Christ
by his death opened the gate of the kingdom of heaven.
But even this opinion, as general as it hath been, hath neither that
consent of antiquity, nor such certainty as it pretendeth, but is rather
built upon the improbabilities of a worse. The most ancient of all
the fathers [Jusin Martyr, Ireneaus, Tertullian, Hilary, Gregory Nyssen,
Novatian], whose writings are extant, were so far from believing that the
end of Christ’s descent into hell was to translate the saints of old into
heaven, that they thought them not to be in heaven yet, nor ever to be
removed from that place in which they were before Christ’s death, until
the general resurrection. Others, as we have also shown, thought
the bosom of Abraham was not in any place which could be termed hell, and
consequently could not think that Christ should therefore descend into
hell to deliver them which were not there. And others yet which thought
that Christ delivered the patriarchs from their infernal mansions, did
not think so exclusively, or in opposition to the disobedient and damned
spirits, but conceived many of them to be saved as well a the patriarchs
were, and doubted whether all were not so saved or no [Augustine, Greg.
Naz.]. Indeed I think there were very few (if any) for above five
hundred years after Christ, which did so believe Christ delivered the saints
out of hell, as to leave all the damned there: and therefore this opinion
cannot be grounded upon the prime antiquity, when so many of the ancients
believed not that they were removed at all, and so few acknowledged that
they were removed alone.
And if the authority of this opinion in respect of its antiquity be
not great, the certainty of the truth of it well be less. For first,
if it be not certain that the souls of the patriarchs were in some place
called hell after their own death, and until the death of Christ; if the
bosom of Abraham were not some infernal mansion; then can it not be certain
that Christ descended into hell to deliver them. But there is no
certainty that the souls of the just, the patriarchs and the rest of the
people of God, were kept in any place below, which was or may be called
hell: the bosom of Abraham might well be in the heavens above, far from
any region where the devil and his angels were; the scriptures nowhere
tell us that the spirits of just men went unto, or did remain in hell;
the place in which the rich man was in torments after death is called hell,
but that into which the angels carried the poor man’s soul is not termed
so. There was a vast distance between them two; nor is it likely
that the angels which see the face of God should be sent down from heaven
to convey the souls of the just into that place where the face of God cannot
be seen. When God translated Enoch, and Elias was carried up in a
chariot to heaven, they seem not to be conveyed to a place where there
was no vision of God; and yet it is most probable that Moses was with Elias
as well before as upon the mount: nor is there any reason to conceive that
Abraham should be in any worse place or condition than Enoch was, having
as great a testimony that he pleased God, as Enoch had [Heb. xi. 9].
Secondly, it cannot be certain that the soul of Christ delivered the
souls of the saints of old from hell, and imparted to them the beatifical
vision, except it were certain that the souls are in another place and
a better condition now than they were before. But there is no certainty
that the patriarchs and the prophets are now in another place and a better
condition than they were before our blessed Saviour died; there is no intimation
of any such alteration of their state delivered in the scriptures; there
is no such place with any probability pretended to prove any actual accession
of happiness and glory already past. “Many shall come from the east
and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the
kingdom of heaven [Matt. 8:11]; there then did the Gentiles which came
in to Christ find the patriarchs, even in the kingdom of heaven; and we
cannot perceive that they found them anywhere else than Lazarus did.
For the description is the same, “There shall be weeping and gnashing of
teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets
in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out” [Luke 13:28].
For as the rich man “in hell lift up his eyes being in torments, and seeth
Abraham afar off [Luke 14:23], before the death of Christ; so those that
were in “weeping and gnashing of teeth, saw Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob,
and the prophets,” when the Gentiles were brought in.
Thirdly, though it were certain that the souls of the saints had been
in a place called hell, as they were not; though it were also certain that
they were now in a better condition than they were before Christ’s death,
as it is not; yet it would not follow that Christ descended into hell to
make this alteration; for it might not be performed before his resurrection,
it might not be effected till his ascension, it might not be attributed
to the merit of his passion, it might have no dependence on his descension.
I conclude therefore that there is no certainty of truth in that proposition
which the schoolmen take of a matter of faith, that Christ delivered the
souls of the saints from that place of hell which they call limbus of the
fathers, into heaven; and for that purpose after his death descended into
hell.
Wherefore being it is most infallibly certain that the death of Christ
was as powerful and effectual for the redemption of the saints before him,
as for those which follow him; being they did all eat the same spiritual
meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink [1 Cor. 10:3, 4]; being
Abraham is the “father of us all”, and we now after Christ’s ascension
are called but to “walk in the steps of the faith” of that father [Rom.
4:12, 16]; being the bosom of Abraham is clearly propounded in the scriptures
as the place into which the blessed angels before the death of Christ conveyed
the souls of those which departed in the favour of God [Luke 14:22], and
is also promised to them which should believe in Christ after his death
[John 13:23; Luke 14:23; Matt. 8:11]; being we can find no difference or
translation of the bosom of Abraham, and yet it is a comfort still to us
that we shall go to him, and while we hope so never fear that we shall
go to hell [Augustine]; I cannot admit this as the end of Christ’s descent
into hell, to convey the souls of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and those
which were with them, from thence; nor can I think there was any reference
to such an action in those words, “Thou shalt not leave my souls in hell.”
Another opinion hath obtained, especially in our church, that the end
for which our Saviour descended into hell was to triumph over Satan and
all the powers below within their own dominions…
[Note: Pearson shows that Col. 2:15 and Eph. 4:8,9 cannot be properly
used to defend this.]
17. And this leads me to that end which I conceive most conformable
to the words of the prophet, and least liable to question or objection.
We have already shown the substance of the article to consist in this,
that the soul of Christ, really separated from his body by death, did truly
pass unto the places below where the souls of men departed were.
And I conceive the end for which he did so was, that he might undergo the
condition of a dead man as well as of a living. He appeared here
in the similitude of sinful flesh, and went into the other world in the
similitude of a sinner. His body was laid in a grave, as ordinarily
the bodies of dead men are; his soul was conveyed into such receptacles
as the souls of other persons use to be. All, which was necessary
for our redemption by way of satisfaction and merit, was already performed
on the cross; and all, which was necessary for the actual collation and
exhibition of what was merited there, was to be effected upon and after
his resurrection: in the interim, therefore, there is nothing left, at
least known to us, but to satisfy the law of death. This he undertook
to do, and did; and though the ancient fathers by the several additions
of other ends have something obscured this, yet it may be sufficiently
observed in their writings [Irenaeus, Hilary, Tertullian, Augustine, Jerome,
Fulgentius], and is certainly most conformable to that prophetical expression,
upon which we have hitherto grounded our explication “Thou shalt not leave
my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thy holy one to see corruption.”
18. Secondly, by the descent of Christ into hell all those which believe
in him are secured from descending thither; he went unto those regions
of darkness that our souls might never come into those torments which are
there. By his descent he freed us from our fears, as by his ascension
he secured us of our hopes. He passed to those habitations where
Satan hath taken up possession, and exerciseth his dominion, that having
no power over him, we might be assured that he should never exercise any
power over our souls departed, as belongeth unto him. “Through death
he destroyed him that had the power of death, that is the devil” [Heb.
2:14], and by his actual descent into the dominions of him so destroyed
secured all which have an interest in him of the same freedom which he
had. Which truth is also still preserved (though among many other
strange conceptions) in the writings of the fathers [De Anima, Augustine,
Athanasius].
19. Having thus examined the several interpretations of this part of
the article, we may now give a brief and safe account thereof, and teach
every one how they may express their faith without any danger of mistake,
saying, I give a full and undoubting assent unto this as to a certain truth,
that when all the sufferings of Christ were finished on the cross, and
his soul was separated from his body, though his body were dead, yet his
soul died not, and though it died not, yet it underwent the condition of
the souls of such as die, and being he died in the similitude of a sinner,
his soul went to the place where the souls of men are kept who die for
their sins, and so did wholly undergo the law of death; but because there
was no sin in him, and he had fully satisfied for the sins of others which
he took upon him, therefore as God suffered not his holy one to see corruption,
so he left not his soul in hell, and thereby gave sufficient security to
all those who belong to Christ of never coming under the power of Satan
or suffering in the flames prepared for the devil and his angels.
And thus and for these purposes may every Christian say, I believe that
Christ descended into hell.
