This place then of St. Paul to the Colossians cannot prove that Christ descended into hell, to triumph over the devil there; and if it be not proper for that purpose of itself, it will not be more effectual by the addition of that other to the Ephesians. For, first, we have already shewn, that the descending into the lower parts of the earth, doth not necessarily signify his descent into hell, and consequently, cannot prove that either those things which are spoken in the same place, or in any other, are to be attributed to that descent. Again, if it were granted, that those words did signify hell, and this Article of our CREED were contained in them, yet would it not follow from that Scripture, that Christ triumphed over Satan while his soul was in hell; for the consequence would be only this, that the same Christ, who led captivity captive, descended first into hell. In that he ascended (and ascending led captivity captive), what is it but that he descended first? The descent, then, if it were to hell, did precede the triumphant ascent of the same person; and that is all which the apostle's words will evince. Nay, farther yet, the ascent mentioned by St. Paul cannot be that, which immediately followed the descent into hell, for it evidently signifieth the ascension, which followed forty days after his resurrection. It is not an ascent from the parts below to the surface of the earth, but to the heavens above, an ascending up on high, even far above all heavens. Now the leading captivity captive belongeth clearly to this ascent, and not to any descent which did precede it. It is not said, that he descended first to lead captivity captive; and yet it must be so, if Christ descended into hell to triumph there it is not said, when he had led captivity captive, he ascended up on high; for then it might be supposed, that the captives had been led before: but it is expressly said, ascending up on high he led captivity captive;* and consequently, that triumphant act was the immediate effect of his ascension. So that by these two Scriptures no more can be proved than this, that Christ triumphed over principalities and powers at his death upon the cross, and led captivity captive at his ascension into heaven. Which is so far from proving that Christ descended into hell to triumph there, that it is more proper to persuade the contrary. For why should he go to is, ἐν σταυρῷ, or, ἐν αὐτῷ with the Latins in seipso, it is the same: for he triumphed over the devil by himself upon the cross, as in the same case it is written, Eph. ii. 16. Kai ἀποκαταλλάξει τοὺς ἀμφοτέρους ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι τῷ Θεῷ διὰ τοῦ σταυροῦ, ἀποκτείνας τὴν ἔχθραν ἐν αὐτῷ.

*The original words do manifestly shew, that this triumphant act did not precede this ascent: for had it been, αἰχμαλωτεύσας αἰχμαλωσίαν ἀνέβη εἰς

os, we might well have expounded

it thus; Christ did lead sin and death and Satan captive; and when he had done so, ascended up on high: but being it is written, avaßàs eis v↓os, that is, having ascended up on high, ψχμαλώτευσεν αἰχμαλωσίαν, he captivated a captivity, the ascent must here precede the captivation, though not in time (as it did the giving of gifts) yet in nature: so that it is not proper to say, by captivating he ascended; but it is proper to express it thus, by ascending he led captive a captivity.

hell to triumph over them, over whom he had triumphed on the cross? Why should he go to captivate that captivity then, which he was to captivate when he ascended into heaven?

As for the testimonies of the fathers, they will appear of small validity to confirm this triumphant descent as it is distinguished from the two former effects, the removal of the saints to heaven, and the delivering the damned from the torments of hell. In vain shall we pretend, that Christ descended into hell to lead captivity captive, if we withal maintain, that when he descended thither, he brought none away which were captive there. This was the very notion which those fathers had, that the souls of men were conquered by Satan, and after death actually brought into captivity; and that the soul of Christ descending to the place where they were, did actually release them from that bondage, and bring them out of the possession of the devil by force.* Thus did he conquer Satan, spoil hell, and lead captivity captive, according to their apprehension. But if he had taken no souls from thence, he had not spoiled hell, he had not led captivity captive, he had not so triumphed in the fathers' sense. Wherefore, being the Scriptures teach us not that Christ triumphed in hell; being the triumph which the fathers mention, was either in relation * So St. Jerome on that place of τοῖς αἰχμαλώτοις ἐλευθερίαν κηρύξας. the Ephesians: Inferiora autem Hom. de Resurr. And thus Macarius terræ infernus accipitur, ad quem supposeth Christ victoriously speaking Dominus noster Salvatorque de- unto hell and death: Kɛλɛuw ooì đồŋ kai scendit, ut Sanctorum animas, quæ σκότος, καὶ θάνατε, ἔκβαλε τὰς ἐγκεκλει ibi tenebantur incluse, secum ad quevas vxác. Homil. xi. p. 62. Auctor coelos Victor abduceret.' And on libelli de Paschate, under the name Matt. xii. 29. Alligatus est fortis, of St. Ambrose: Expers peccati et religatus in Tartarum, et Domini Christus cum ad Tartari ima descencontritus pede; et direptis sedibus deret, seras inferni januasque conTyranni, captiva ducta est captivitas.' fringens, vinctas peccato animas, So Arnoldus Carnotensis is to be understood, De Unctione Chrismatis: 'Passus est rex illudi, et vita occidi; descendensque ad inferos captivam ab antiquo captivitatem reduxit:' applying it to the custom of the Church: 'Omnino convenit, ut eo tempore quo Christus captivos eduxit ab inferis, reconciliati peccatores ad Ecclesiam reducantur.' Ibid. Thus Athanasius, when he speaks of Christ's triumphing over Satan in hell, he mentions ròv ädŋv okvλev0évta, hell spoiled, to wit, of those souls which before it kept in hold. Otherwise in the same oration, in Passionem et Crucem, he acknowledgeth the triumph on the cross: "Ede yàp ròv vữŋτὴν τὸν θριαμβεύοντα (not θριαμβεύσοντα) κατὰ τοῦ διαβόλου, μὴ ἄλλῳ συγχωρεῖν ἀλλ ̓ ἑαυτῷ βαστάζειν τὸ τρόπαιον, §. 20. Thus Leo the emperor: Xpuστὸς ἀνέστη τὸν ᾅδην αἰχμαλωτίσας, καὶ

6

mortis dominatione destructa e diaboli faucibus revocavit ad vitam. Atque ita divinum triumphum æternis characteribus est conscriptum, dum dicit, Ubi est, mors, aculeus tuus? Ubi est, mors, victoria tua? cap. 4. And the commentaries under the same name: Gratia Dei abundavit in descensu Salvatoris, omnibus dans indulgentiam, cum triumpho sublatis eis in coelum.' Ad Rom. v. 15. 'Secundum animam descendit ad inferna et spoliavit principes tenebrarum ab animabus electorum.' Egbert. Serm. 9. contra Catharos. Thus still the fathers which speak of spoiling hell, of leading captivity captive, of triumphing over Satan in his own quarters, are to be understood in respect to those souls which they thought were taken out of the custody, possession, or dominion of Satan, whether just or unjust.

to the damned souls which Christ took out of those tormenting flames as some imagined, or in reference to the spirits of the just, which he took out of those infernal habitations, as others did conceive; being we have already thought fit not to admit either of these two as the effect of Christ's descent: it followeth that we cannot acknowledge this as the proper end of the Article.

Nor can we see how the prophet David could intend so much, as if, when he spake those words in the person of our Saviour, "Thou shalt not leave my soul in hell," he should have intended this, Thou shalt not leave my soul separated from my body, and conveyed into the regions of the damned spirits, amongst all the principalities and powers of hell; I say, thou shalt not leave me there, battering all the infernal strength, redeeming the prisoners, leading captivity captive, and victoriously triumphing over death, and hell, and Satan. In sum, those words of the prophet cannot admit any interpretation, involving a glorious, triumphant, and victorious condition, which is not a subject capable of dereliction. For as the hope which he had of his body, that it should not see corruption, supposed that it was to be put in the grave, which could not of itself free the body from corruption; so the hope that his soul should not be left in hell, supposeth it not to be in such a state, as was of itself contradictory to dereliction.

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 shewn 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,* and is certainly *Irenæus so calls his descent: 'le- that which I intend very clearly: gem mortuorum servare.' Adv. Hæres. I. v. c. 26. and St. Hilary expresses

Morte non interceptus est unigenitus Dei Filius; ad explendam quidem

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." (Psal. xvi. 10.)

Secondly, By the descent of Christ into hell, all those which believe in him, are secured from descending thither; he went into 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 over our souls departed, as belonging unto him. "Through death he destroyed him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;" (Heb. ii. 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.*

hominis naturam, etiam morti se, id est, discessioni se tanquam animæ corporisque subjecit, et ad infernas sedes, id quod homini debitum videtur esse, penetravit.' Tract. in Psal. liii. §. 14. And before him Tertullian: Christus Deus, quia et homo mortuus secundum Scripturas, et sepultus secus easdem, huic quoque legi satisfecit, forma humanæ mortis apud in feros functus.' De Anima, c. 55. "Hλ0ev αὐτὸς ὁ τῶν πάντων σωτὴρ, καὶ τὰς ἡμῖν χρεωστουμένας τιμωρίας εἰς τὴν ἐξ ἡμῶν, ἀνθ' ἡμῶν, ἀναμάρτητον αὐτοῦ ὑπεδέξατο σάρκα. Καταφερόμεθα μετὰ τὸν θάνατον εἰς τὸν ᾅδην· ἀνεδέξατο καὶ τοῦτο, καὶ κατῆλθεν ἑκουσίως εἰς αὐτόν. Gelas. Act. Conc. Nic. l. ii. c. 32. This St. Augustin calls proprietatem carnis, Cont. Felician. c. 11. 'Scio ad inferos Divinitatem Filii Dei descendisse proprietate carnis; scio ad coelum adscendisse carnem merito Deitatis. And afterwards he calls it Injuriam carnis: ' Erat uno atque eodem tempore ipse totus etiam in inferno, totus in coelo, illic patiens injuriam carnis, hic non relinquens gloriam Deitatis.' c. 14. Impleta est Scriptura quæ dicit, et cum iniquis reputatus est. Quod et altius intelligi potest,dicente de semetipso Domino, reputatus sum cum descendentibus in lacum: factus sum sicut homo sine adjutorio, inter mortuos liber. Vere enim reputatus est inter peccatores et iniquos, ut descenderet ad infernum.' S. Hieron. in Isaia c. liii. 12. Ruffinus, in his Exposi

tion of the Creed, descanting_upon that place in the Psalms: Factus sum sicut homo sine adjutorio, inter mortuos liber. Non dixit homo, sed sicut homo. Sicut homo enim erat, quia etiam descenderat in infernum ; sed inter mortuos liber erat, quia a morte teneri non poterat. Et ideo in uno natura bumanæ fragilitatis, in alio divinæ potestas majestatis ostenditur.' §. 29. And yet more pertinently Fulgentius: ' Restabat ad plenum nostræ redemptionis effectum, ut illuc usque homo sine peccato a Deo susceptus descenderet; quousque bomo separatus a Deo peccati merito cecidisset, id est, ad infernum, ubi solebat peccatoris anima torqueri, et ad sepulcrum, ubi consueverat peccatoris caro corrumpi.' Ad Thrasim. 1. iii. c. 30. Εἰ οὖν καὶ αὐτὸς εἵλετο, κύριος ὢν τοῦ παντὸς, καὶ δεσπότης, καὶ φῶς τῶν ἐν σκότει, καὶ ζωὴ τῶν ἁπάντων, θανάτου γεύσασθαι, καὶ τὴν εἰς ᾅδου κατάβασιν· ἐπιδέξασθαι, ὡς ἂν κατὰ πάντα ἡμῖν ὁμοιωθῇ χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας, &c. Andreas Cret. Serm. in vitam humanam, p. 241. I conclude this with that exposition of St. Hilary upon the words of the Psalmist," If I go down into hell, thou art there also :” Humanæ ista lex necessitatis est, ut consepultis corporibus ad inferos animæ descendant: quam descensionem Dominus ad consummationem veri hominis non recusavit." Tract. in Psal. cxxxviii. §. 22.

* As we read of the opinion in

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, (John xix. 30.) 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.

He rose again.

WHATSOEVER variations have appeared in any of the other Articles, this part, of Christ's resurrection, hath been constantly delivered without the least alteration, either by way of addition or diminution.* The whole matter of it is so necessary and essential to the Christian faith, that nothing of it could be omitted; and in these few expressions the whole doctrine is so clearly delivered, that nothing needed to be added. At the first view we are presented with three particulars: First, The action itself, or the resurrection of Christ, he rose again. Secondly, The verity, reality, and propriety of that resurrection, he rose from the dead. Thirdly, The circumstance of time, or distance of his resurrection from his death, he rose from the dead the third day.

Tertullian's time, though not of him: "Sed in hoe, inquiunt, Christus inferos adiit, ne nos adiremus. Cæterum, quod discrimen Ethnicorum et Christianorum, si carcer mortuis idem? De Anima, c. 55. Ergo aut ipsius vox est hie, Et eruisti animam meam ab inferno inferiore, aut nostra vox per ipsum Christum Dominum nostrum; quia ideo ille pervenit usque ad infernum, ne nos remaneremus in inferno.' S. August. in Psal. lxxxv. §. 17. Háoɣwv yàp avтòç nμãs ἀνέλαβε, καὶ πεινῶν αὐτὸς ἡμᾶς ἔτρεφε, καὶ εἰς τὸν ᾅδην καταβαίνων, ἡμᾶς ἀνέφερε. S. Athanas. in Omnia mihi trad. &c. §. 2.

*For though Eusebius Gallicanus and Venantius Fortunatus leave out the last words, a mortuis, and some copies in Ruffinus have it not; yet it is generally expressed in all the rest, which are more ancient than Eusebius or Fortunatus: and therefore that omission is to be imputed rather to negligence either of the author or the scribe, than to the usage of the Church in their age. 'Quod die tertio resurrexerit a mortuis Dominus Christus, nullus ambigit Christianus.' S. August. in Vigiliis Pasche, iii. Serm. 79. al. 221. §. 1.