99 1

eous." Pearson cites, in proof, the passages already quoted from Angustine's Epistle, and Commentary on Genesis. On the other hand, in his City of God (XX. 15), Augustine hesitatingly accepts the doctrine that the Old Testament saints were in limbo, and were delivered by Christ's descent into their abode. "It does not seem absurd to believe, that the ancient saints who believed in Christ, and his future coming, were kept in places far removed, indeed, from the torments of the wicked, but yet in Hades (apud inferos), until Christ's blood and his descent into these places delivered them." Yet in his exposition of the Apostles' creed (De Fide et Symbolo), Augustine makes no allusion to the clause, "He descended into Hades." And the same silence appears in the De Symbolo, attributed to him. After expounding the clauses respecting Christ's passion, crucifixion, and burial, he then explains those concerning his resurrection and ascent into heaven. This proves that when he wrote this exposition, the dogma was not an acknowledged part of the catholic faith. Still

1 Notwithstanding the currency which the view of Hades as the abode of the good and evil between death and the resurrection has obtained, it would shock the feelings, should a clergyman say to mourning friends: "Dry your tears, the departed saint has gone down to Hades."

2 The Episcopal Church does not regard the "descent into hell" as a necessary part of the Christian faith. In the Order for Evening Prayer, it is said that " any churches may omit the words, 'He descended into hell.'" The Forty-two Articles of Edward VI. explain the clause to mean a descent into Hades, and preaching to the Old Testament saints in prison there. The Elizabethan Thirty-nine Articles give no explanation, but contain both clauses. Hence Pearson concludes that the Episcopalian has some liberty in the interpretation of this article. His own method is, first, to explain the Scripture, and then to explain the creed as it now reads in its modern form. His explanation of Scripture is, that in the clause, Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell," soul is metonymically put for body, and hell means the grave: Because (a) In the Hebrew, soul is frequently put for body. (b) Sheol means grave in many places. (c) The Aquileian creed so intended. Still, he says, though this may be a probable interpretation of the words of David, yet it cannot pretend to be an exposition of the creed as it now stands " in the Thirty-nine Articles: that is, as containing both clauses. Because when both clauses are retained, as in the Thirty-nine Articles, the second must be more than a mere repetition and explanation of the first. For if one merely explains the other, one would

later, Peter Chrysologus, archbishop of Ravenna, and Maximus of Turin, explain the Apostles' creed and make no exposition of the Descent to Hades. The difference of opinion among the fathers of the first four centuries, together with the absence of scriptural support for it, is the reason why the Descensus ad inferos was not earlier inserted into the Apostles' creed. It required the development of the doctrine of purgatory, and of the mediaeval eschatology generally, in order to get it formally into the doctrinal system of both the Eastern and Western churches.'

be omitted, as Rufinus says was the case in the Aquileian creed, and as is the case in the Athanasian symboi. Hence Pearson decides that the form of this article, as it is adopted in the Thirty-nine Articles, requires to be explained as the Descensus ad inferos, in order to avoid tautology. But the form itself, he shows to be a late addition to the Apostles' creed. If both clauses are retained, the explanation proposed by Whitby (On Acts 2:26, 27) is consistent with Scripture. "The scripture doth assure us that the soul of the holy Jesus, being separated from his body, went to Paradise (Luke 23:43), and from thence it must descend into the grave or sepulchre to be united to his body that this might be revived. And thus it may be truly said: "He was dead and buried; his soul descended afterwards into Hades (the grave), to be united to his body; and his body being thus revived, he rose again the third day.""

1 Baumgarten-Crusius (Dogmengeschichte, II. § 109) finds three stadia in the development of the dogma of the Descent to Hades. 1. The descent was the burial itself put into an imaginative form. 2. The descent was a particular condition or status of Christ resulting from his burial. 3. The descent was entirely separate from the burial, being another and wholly distinct thing.

Van Oosterzee's history of the clause, "He descended into hell," is, as follows: "As concerns the history of this article, the conviction was expressed even by some of the earliest of the fathers-Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, and others—that Jesus, after his burial, actually tarried in the world of spirits, and by some of them, also, that he there preached the gospel; while the romantic manner in which this mysterious subject is presented in the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus is well known. Gnosticism, especially, warmly espoused this idea; according to Marcion, this activity of the Lord was directed to delivering the victims of the Demiurge, and leading them upwards with himself. From the symbols of the Semi-Arians, this much-debated article appears to have passed over to those of the orthodox church, according to some, with a view to controvert Apollinarism. In the Expositio Symboli Aquileiensis of Rufinus, this formula is found, and especially through his influence it appears also to have passed over into other confessions of faith; although it is remarkable that in the Nicene Creed mention is made only of was buried;' in the Athanasian Creed, on the other hand, only of 'descended into hell.' It is manifest from this, that both expressions were first employed by many interchangeably, though very soon greater stress was laid upon the latter, and its contents

The personal and local descent of Christ into Hadeswhether to deliver the Old Testament saints from limbo; or to preach judicially, announcing condemnation to the sinners there; or evangelically, offering salvation to them -if a fact, would have been one of the great cardinal facts connected with the incarnation. It would fall into the same class with the nativity, the baptism, the passion, the crucifixion, the resurrection, and the ascension. Much less important facts than these are recorded. St. Matthew speaks of the descent of Christ into Egypt, but not of his

regarded as the indication of a special remedial activity of the Lord. As the doctrine of purgatory became more developed, the conception found wider acceptance that the Lord had descended into the lower world, in order to deliver the souls of the Old Testament believers from their subterranean abode, the limbus patrum. Especially under the influence of Thomas Aquinas, was developed the doctrine of the Romish Church, that the whole Christ, both as to his divine and human nature, voluntarily repaired thither, to assure to the abovementioned saints the fruits of his death on the cross, and to raise them out of this prison-house to the full enjoyment of heavenly blessedness. According to Luther, on the other hand, who regards the Decensus as the first step in the path of the exaltation, the Lord, after his being made alive according to the spirit, and, immediately upon his return from the grave, descended, body and soul, into hell, there to celebrate his triumph over the devil and his powers (Col. 2:15), and to proclaim to them condemnation and judgment. The Reformed theologians either understood the expression in the sense of 'buried,' or explained it of the final anguish and dismay of the suffering Christ. This latter is the view of Calvin (Inst., IL, xvi.), and of the Heidelberg Catechism (Ans. 44). Some divines, the Lutheran Aepinus, e.g., even maintained that the reference is to the sufferings of hell, which Christ endured in his soul, while his body was lying in the grave. No wonder that the Formula Concordiae declared this article to be one qui neque sensibus, neque ratione nostra comprehendi queat, solo autem fide acceptandus sit;' which, however, did not prevent its being possible to say, on the other side, that 'there are almost as many dissertations concerning the Descensus as there are flies in the height of summer.' (Witsius) Left by the supra-naturalism of the past century entirely in a misty obscurity, it was wholly rejected by the Rationalists, as the fruit of an exploded popular notion, to which, according to Schleiermacher, nothing but a fact wholly unnoticed by the apostles (unbezeugte Thatsache) served as a basis. Only in our day has the tide turned, and theologians of different schools have begun to return with increased interest, yea, with manifest preference to this dogma; and to bring it into direct connection not only with soteriology, but also with eschatology." In the face of this historical account, Van Oosterzee proceeds to defend the doctrine of a local descent to Hades, founding upon Ps. 16:10; Acts 2: 25-31; 13: 33-37; Eph. 4:8-10; 1 Pet. 3:19-21; 4:6. Dogmatics, II. 558 sq.

descent into Hades. Such an act of the Redeemer as going down into an infernal world of spirits, would certainly have been mentioned by some one of the inspired biographers of Christ. The total silence of the four Gospels is fatal to the tenet. St. Paul, in his recapitulation of the principal events of our Lord's life, evidently knows nothing of the descent into Hades. "I delivered unto you that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day," 1 Cor. 15:3, 4. The remark of bishop Burnet (Thirty-nine Articles, Art. III.) is sound. "Many of the fathers thought that Christ's soul went locally into hell, and preached to some of the spirits there in prison; that there he triumphed over Satan, and spoiled him, and carried some souls with him into glory. But the account that the Scripture gives us of the exaltation of Christ begins it always at his resurrection. Nor can it be imagined that so memorable a transaction as this would have been passed over by the first three Evangelists, and least of all by St. John, who coming after the rest, and designing to supply what was wanting in them, and intending particularly to magnify the glory of Christ, could not have passed over so wonderful an instance of it. The passage in St. Peter seems to relate to the preaching to the Gentile world, by virtue of that inspiration that was derived from Christ."'

1 Augustine, Bede, Aquinas, Erasmus, Beza, Gerhard, Hottinger, Clericus, Leighton, Pearson, Secker, Hammond, Hofmann, and most of the Reformed theologians, explain 1 Pet. 3:18-20 to mean, that Christ preached by Noah to men who were "disobedient" in the days of Noah, and who for this cause were "spirits in prison" at the time of Peter's writing. The participle wóre, qualifying åreidhoaol, shows that the disobedience (or disbelief) occurred "when the ark was a-preparing. But the preaching must have been contemporaneous with the disobedience, or disbelief. What else was there to disobey, or disbelieve? Says Pearson (Creed, Art. II.), "Christ was really before the flood, for he preached to them that lived before it. This is evident from the words of St. Peter (1 Pet. 3:18-20). From which words it appeareth, first, That Christ preached by the same Spirit by the virtue of which he was raised from the dead but that Spirit was not his [human] soul, but something of a greater VOL. II.-39

The Early-Patristic and Reformed view of the Intermediate State agrees with the Scriptures, as the following particulars prove.

1. Both the Old and New Testaments represent the intermediate state of the soul to be a disembodied state.

power; secondly, That those to whom he preached were such as were disobedient; thirdly, That the time when they were disobedient was the time before the flood, when the ark was preparing. The plain interpretation is to be acknowledged for the true, that Christ did preach unto those men which lived before the flood, even while they lived, and consequently that he was before it. For though this was not done by an immediate act of the Son of God, as if he personally had appeared on earth and actually preached to that world, but by the ministry of a prophet, by the sending of Noah the eighth preacher of righteousness:' yet to do anything by another not able to perform it without him, as much demonstrates the existence of the principal cause, as if he did it himself without any intervening instrument."

Another proof of the correctness of this interpretation is the fact that Christ's preaching to "the spirits in prison" was πveúμ¤ri, only. The total deárIparos did not preach. The odp, or human nature, of Christ had no part in the act. But Christ's personal and local preaching in Hades would require his whole Divine-human person; as much so as his preaching in Galilee or Jerusalem. The Formula Concordiae (IX. 2) so understands and teaches: "Credimus quod tota persona, deus et homo, post sepulturam, ad inferos descenderit, Satanam devicerit, etc." Christ's preaching through Noah-"a preacher of righteousness " (2 Pet. 2:5), and therefore an "ambassador of Christ" (2 Cor. 5:20)— might be done through his divinity alone. See Eph. 4:20, 21; Acts 26:23; John 10:16, for instances in which Christ's preaching by others is called his preaching. It is objected that the phrase, he, “went and preached ” (#opevdels ¿khpužev), in 1 Pet. 3:19, would not apply to a preaching that was instrumental and spiritual. But the same use is found in Eph. 2:17. Christ "came and preached (v evayyeλíoaro) to you which were afar off." The reference is to Christ's preaching to the Gentile world by his apostles. Christ, in his own person, did not preach to them which were "afar off; " and he forbade his disciples to do so until the time appointed by the Father, Matt. 10:5; Acts 1:4. The objection that actually living men upon earth would not be called "spirits" is met by Rom. 13:1; 1 John 4:1, 3; and by the fact that at the time of Peter's writing the persons meant are disembodied spirits.

The passage 1 Pet. 4:6, sometimes cited in proof of the descensus ad inferos, refers to the preaching of the gospel to the spiritually “dead in trespasses and sins." This is Augustine's interpretation (Ep. ad Euodium, VI. 21). In Eph. 4: 9, Tа KATÚTEρa μépn tûs yûs, to which Christ "descended "from" on high," signifies this lower world of earth. St. Paul is speaking here of the incarnation. The incarnate Logos did not descend from heaven to hades, nor ascend from hades to heaven. Compare Isa. 44:23, "Shout, ye lower parts of the earth." This is the opposite of the "heavens," which are bidden to "sing." In