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. That this was the general opinion of the Church, will appear, not only by the testimonies of those ancient writers who lived successively,* and wrote in several ages, and delivered As Irenæus: 'Cum enim Dominus in medio umbræ mortis abierit, ubi animæ mortuorum erant, post de inde corporaliter resurrexit-manifestum est, quia et discipulorum ejus, propter quos et hæc operatus est Dominus, animæ abibunt in invisibilem loeum definitum eis a Deo, &c.' l. v. c. 26. Clemens Alexandrinus was so clearly of that opinion, that he thought the soul of Christ preached salvation to the souls of hell. Strom. 1. vi. c. 6. And Tertullian proves that the inferi are a cavity in the earth where the souls of dead men are, because the soul of Christ went thither: Quod si Christus Deus, quia et homo mortuus secundum Scripturas, et sepultus secundum easdem, buic quoque legi satisfecit, forma humanæ mortis apud inferos functus, nec ante adscendit in sublimiora coelorum quam descendit in inferiora terrarum, ut illic Patriarchas et Prophetas compotes sui faceret; habes et regionem inferum subterraneam credere, et illos cubito pellere, qui satis superbe non putent animas fdelium inferis dignas. De Anim. c. 55. Γυμνῇ σώματος γενόμενος ψυχῇ ταῖς rouvais owμárov wpiλe puxais. Orig. contra Celsum, 1. ii. §. 43. ‘ Ipsa anima, etsi fuit in abysso, jam non est, quia scriptum est, non derelinques animam meam in inferno.' S. Ambros. de Incarn. c. 5. Ši ergo secundum hominem, quem Verbum Deus suscepit, putamus dictum esse, hodie mecum eris in Paradiso, non ex his verbis in coelo existimandus est esse Paradisus. Neque enim ipso die in coelo futurus erat homo Christus Jesus, sed in inferno secundum animam, in sepulcro autem secundum carnem, Et de carne quidem, quod eo die in sepulero sit posita, manifestum est evan• gelium. Quod vero illa anima in in fernum descenderit, apostolica do- Synes. Hymn. ix. 7. Ψυχὴ δὲ ἡ Θεία, τὴν πρὸς αὐτὸν λαχοῦσα συνδρομήν τε καὶ ἕνωσιν, καταπεφοίτηκε μὲν εἰς ᾅδου, Θεοπρεπεῖ δὲ δυνάμει καὶ ἐξουσίᾳ χρωμένη, καὶ τοῖς ἐκεῖσε πνεύμα σi KarεpaivεTO. S. Cyril. Alex. Dial, de Incarn. t. v. par. i. p. 693. 'O μèv τάφος αὐτοῦ σῶμα μόνον ὑπεδέξατο, ψυχὴν δὲ μόνην ὁ ᾅδης. Anast. apud Euthym. Panopl, par. ii. tit. 17. 'Postquam igitur exaltatus est, id est, a Judæis in cruce suspensus, et spiritum reddidit, unita suæ Divinitati anima ad inferorum profunda descendit.' Auctor Serm. de tempore. ་ Corpore in sepulcro seposito, Divinitas cum anima hominis ad inferna descendens vocavit de locis suis animas sanctorum.' Gaudentius Brix. Tract. 10. In hoc Divinitas Christi virtutem suæ impassibilitatis ostendit, quæ ubique, semper et ineffabiliter præsens, et secundum animam suam in inferno sine doloribus fuit, et secundum carnem suam in sepulcro sine corruptione jacuit; quia nec 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 shew more the general opinion of the catholics and the heretics, and that not only of the present, but of the precedent ages. For it 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 Apolcarni suæ defuit, cum animam suam out of his book De Incarnatione in inferno dolere non sineret; nec Christi, written particularly against animam suam in inferno deseruit, Apollinarius: Πείσθητε οὖν, ὅτι ὁ ἔσωcum in sepulcro carnem suam ἃ θεν ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχή· τοῦτο corruptione servaret. Fulgent. ad καὶ τῆς πρώτης πλάσεως δεικνυούσης, Thrasimund. 1. iii. c. 31. What the Apollinarian heresy was, is certainly known: they denied that Christ had a human soul, afirming the Word was to him in the place of a soul. Apollinaristas Apollinarius instituit, qui de anima Christi a catholicis dissenserunt, dicentes, sicut Ariani, Deum Christum carnem sine anima suscepisse. In qua quaestione testimoniis evangelicis victi, mentem, qua rationalis est anima hominis, non fuisse in anima Christi, sed pro hac ipsum Verbum in ea fuisse, dixerunt. S. August. de Hares. 55. Against this heresy the catholics argued from the descent into hell, as that which was acknowledged by them all, even by the Arians (with whom the Apolo linarians in this agreed), as we have shewn before by three several creeds of theirs in which they expressed this descent. This is the argument of Athanasius in his fourth dialogue De Trinitate, which is particularly with an Apollinarian: Ὥσπερ οὐκ ἠδύνατο ὁ Θεὸς ἐν μνήματι καὶ ἐν ταφῇ γενέσθαι, εἰ μὴ εἶχεν τὸ τιθέμενον σῶμα· οὕτως οὐκ ἂν ἐλέχθη κατακεχωρίσθαι τοῦ σώματος, πανταχοῦ ὢν καὶ τὰ πάντα περιέχων, εἰ μὴ εἶχε τὴν χωριζομένην ψυχὴν, μεθ' ἧς καὶ τοῖς ἐν ᾅδου εὐηγγελίσατο· διὰ γὰρ αὐτὴν ἀναχωρεῖν τοῦ σώματος λέγεται καὶ ἐν ᾅδου γεγενῆσθαι· καὶ τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐν ᾅδου γενέσθαι διὰ τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ ἐν μνήματι τιθῆναι διὰ τὸ σῶμα. §. 7. But because these dialogues may be questioned as not genuine, the same argument may be produced · καὶ τῆς δευτέρας διαλύσεως δηλούσης, οὐ μόνον ἐφ' ἡμῖν τούτων δεικνυμένων, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ θανάτῳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐδείκνυτο· τὸ μέντοι μέχρι τάφου φθάσαν, ἡ δὲ μέχρι ᾅδου διαβᾶσα· διαιρετῶν δὲ ὄντων τῶν τόπων πολλῷ μέτρῳ καὶ τοῦ μὲν τάφου σωματικὴν ἐπιδεχομένου τὴν ἐπίβασιν, ἐκεῖσε παρῆν τὸ σῶμα, τοῦ δὲ ᾅδου ἀσώματον· πῶς ἐκεῖ παρὼν ὁ Κύριος ἀσωμάτως, ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἐνομίσθη ὑπὸ τοῦ θανατοῦ; ἵνα ψυχαῖς ταῖς ἐν δεσμοῖς κατεχομέναις, μορφὴν ἰδίας ψυχῆς ἀνεπιδεκτὸν ὡς δεκτικὴν τῶν δεσμῶν τοῦ θανά του παραστήσας, παροῦσαν παρούσαις, διαῤῥήξῃ τὰ δεσμὰ ψυχῶν τῶν ἐν ᾅδου και τεχομένων.l. i. §. 13. Thus Euthymius, in his commentary upon the words of the Psalmist, "Thou shalt not leave my soul in hell:” Τίθησι καὶ τῆς ἐλπίδος τὴν αἰτίαν. Καὶ γὰρ οὐκ ἐγκαταλείψεις, φησὶ, τὴν ψυχήν μου εἰς ᾅδην, ὅπου τῶν τετελευτηκότων αἱ ψυχαὶ κατέχονται τόσ πος γὰρ ὁ ᾅδης ὑπὸ γῆν ἀποκεκληρωμέ νος ταῖς τῶν ἀποθνησκόντων ψυχαῖς ποῦ τοίνυν ὁ λῆρος ̓Απολλινάριος, ὁ τὴν προσληφθεῖσαν σάρκα δογματίζων ἄψυχον καὶ ἄνουν; ὡς ἀνόητος. And from hence we may understand the words of Theodoret, who at the end of his exposition of this Psalm thus concludes: Οὗτος ὁ ψαλμὸς καὶ τὴν ̓Αρείου καὶ τὴν Εὐνομίου καὶ ̓Απολλιναρίου φρενοβλά βειαν ἐλέγχει. Which is in reference to those words, “ Thou shalt not leave my soul in hell.” In the same manner, Leporius Presbyter (' quod male senserat de Incarnatione Christi, corrigens,' as Gennadius observeth, Illust. Vir. cat. 60. and particularly dis linarians could not deny; and that this descent was not made by his Divinity, nor 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 grave; or that it was not a 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, 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 6 avowing that of the Arians and Apollinarians, Deum hominemque commixtum, et tali confusione carnis et verbi quasi aliquod corpus effectum') does thus express the reality and distinction of the soul and body of the same Christ: ‘Tam Christus filius Dei tunc mortuus jacuit in sepulcro, quam idem Christus filius Dei ad inferna descendit; sicut beatus apostolus dicit, Quod autem ascendit, quid est nisi quod descendit primum in inferiores partes terræ? Ipse utique Dominus et Deus noster Jesus Christus nnicus Dei, qui cum anima ad inferna descendit, ipse cum anima et corpore ascendit ad Coelum.' Libel. Emendationis, p. 23. And Capreolus, bishop of Carthage, writing against the Nestorian heresy, proveth that the soul of Christ was united to his Divinity when it descended into hell, and follows that argument, urging it at large; in which discourse among the rest he hath this passage: Tantum abest, Deum Dei filium, incommutabilem atque incomprehensibilem, ab inferis potuisse concludi; ut nec ipsam adsumptionis animam, aut exitiabiliter susceptam aut tenaciter derelictam: sed nec carnem ejus credimus contagione alicujus corruptionis infectam, Ipsius namque vox est in Psalmo, sicut Petrus interpretatur apostolus, the fathers was of equal 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 a 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 a 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. 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 were 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 + Some of the ancient fathers did believe that the word ons in the Scriptures had the same signification which it hath among the Greeks, as comprehending all the souls both of the wicked and the just; and so they took infernus in the same latitude. As therefore the ancient Greeks did assign one ᾅδης for all which died, Πάντας ὁμῶς θνητοὺς ἀΐδης δέχεται and κοινὸν ᾅδην πάντες ἥξουσιν βροτοί· as they made within that one aồng two several receptacles, one for the good and virtuous, the other for the wicked and unjust (according to that of Diphilus, ap. Clem. Alex. Strom. v. c. 14. p. 721. * At first indeed the Apollinarians ani vero carnis tantummodo.' Facundid so speak, as if they denied the hu- dus, I. ix. c. 3. man soul in both acceptations; but afterwards they clearly affirmed the vxn, and denied the vous alone. So Socrates testifies of them: IIpórɛpov μὲν ἔλεγον ἀναληφθῆναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου ἐν τῇ οἰκονομίᾳ τῆς ἐνανθρωπήσεως ψυχῆς ἄνευ· εἶτα ὡς ἐκ μετανοίας ἐπιδιορθούμενοι, προσέθηκαν ψυχὴν μὲν ἀνειληφέναι, νοῦν δὲ οὐκ ἔχειν αὐτὴν, ἀλλ ̓ εἶναι τὸν Θεὸν Λόγον ἀντὶ νοῦ εἰς τὸν ἀναληφθέντα ἄνθρωπον. Hist. l. ii. c. 46. Nam et aliqui eorum fuisse in Christo animam negare non potuerunt. Videte absurditatem et insaniam non ferendam. Animam irrationalem eum habere voluerunt, rationalem negaverunt; dederunt ei animam pecoris, subtraxerunt animam hominis.' S. August. Tract. 47. in Ioan. §. 8. This was so properly indeed the Apollinarian heresy, that it was thereby distinguished from the Arian. Nam Apollinaristæ quidem carnis et animæ naturam sine mente adsumpsisse Dominum credunt, Ari Καὶ γὰρ καθ' ᾅδην δύο τρίβους νομίζομεν, Hic locus est, partes ubi se via findit in ambas: 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. Hac iter Elysium nobis: at læva malorum as they did send the best of men to · Τοῖσι λάμπει μένος ἀελίου Κεῖνοι βροτῶν, οἳ ταῦτα δερχθέντες τέλη happiness, (Τοῦτο δὲ ὄνομα κικλήσκομεν cóλov'Aßpaàu) and the unjust on the left to a place of misery. OuTOS & TEρì ᾅδου λόγος, ἐν ᾧ ψυχαὶ πάντων κατέχονται ἄχρι καιροῦ ὃν ὁ Θεὸς ὤρισεν. p. 923. Tertullian wrote a tract, De Paradiso, now not extant, in which he expressed thus much: Habes etiam de Paradiso a nobis libellum, quo constituimus omnem animam apud Inferos sequestrari in diem Domini.' De Anima, c. 55. St. Jerome on the third chapter of Ecclesiastes : 'Ante adventum Christi omnia ad inferos pariter ducebantur: unde et Jacob ad inferos pariter descensurum se dicit; et Job pios et impios in inferno queritur retentari: ct Evangelium, chaos magnum interpositum apud inferos; et Abraham cum Lazaro, et divitem in suppliciis, esse testatur.' ad fin. And in his 25th, al. 22nd, Epistle: Perfacilis ad ista responsio est; Luxisse Jacob flium, quem putabat occisum, ad quem et ipse erat ad inferos descensurus, dicens, Descendam ad filium meum lugens in infernum: quia necdum Paradisi januam Christus effregerat, necdum flammeam illam romphæam et vertiginem præsidentium Cherubin sanguis ejus exstinxerat. Unde et Abraham, licet in loco refrigerii, tamen apud inferos cum Lazaro fuisse scribitur.' col. 57. And again: 'Nequeo satis Scripturæ laudare mysteria, et divinum sensum in verbis licet simplicibus admirari: quod, Moyses so did the Jews also before and after our Saviour's time. For Josephus says, the soul of Samuel was brought upadov, and delivers the opinion of the Pharisees after this manner, Ant. Jud. 1. xviii. c. 2. 'Alávatóv te ioxùv πίστις αὐτοῖς, εἶναι καὶ ὑπὸ χθόνος δικαιώσείς τε καὶ τιμὰς οἷς ἀρετῆς ἢ κακίας ÉTITýdeVoic ÉV TÝ ßių yέyove and of the Sadducees after this manner: Yuxñs · τε τὴν διαμονὴν, καὶ τὰς καθ ̓ ᾅδου τιμωρίας καὶ τιμὰς ἀναιροῦσι. Therefore the Jews which thought the souls immortal did believe that the just were rewarded, as well as the unjust punished, vò xlovòs, or kad dov. And so did also most of the ancient fathers of the Church. There was an ancient book written De Universi Natura, which some attributed to Justin Martyr, some to Irenæus, others to Origen, or to Caius a presbyter of plangitur: et Jesus Nave, vir sanctus, the Roman Church in the time of Victor and Zephyrinus, a fragment of which is set forth by David Hoeschelius in his Annotations upon Photius, delivering the state of ons at large. Περὶ δὲ ᾅδου, ἐν ᾧ συνέχονται ψυχαὶ δικαίων τε καὶ ἀδίκων, ἀναγκαῖον EiTεiv. Here then were the just and unjust in hades, but not in the same place. Οἱ δὲ δίκαιοι ἐν τῷ ᾅδῃ νῦν μὲν συνέχονται, ἀλλ' οὐ τῷ αὐτῷ τόπῳ ᾧ καὶ οἱ ἄδικοι. Μία γὰρ εἰς τοῦτο τὸ χωρίον Kálodos, &c. There was but one passage into the hades, saith he; but when that gate was passed, the just went on the right hand to a place of sepultus fertur, et tamen fletus non |