The Sufferings of Christ, Part 1 · Chapter 12
CHAP. XII. Christ redeemed us not from the curſe of the Law, by his ſoul-ſufferings only. And of the meaning of Haides.
Dialogu GOod Divines do affirm that Chriſt hath redeemed us from the curſe of the Law, not by his bodily but by his ſoul-ſufferings only, which God inflicted upon his ſoul when his body was crucified upon the Tree.
Anſw. I do not finde that any Orthodox Divine ſo affirmeth: Willet cen. 5. err. 3. par. 3. q. 3. Cyril. de rectâ fide ad Theod. Calv. inſti. l. 2. c. 16. ſect. 10, 11, 12.We (ſaith Dr Willet in the name of the Orthodox) ſay then, that though in the uſe and application of Chriſts ſacrifice, we ſpeak diſtinctly that Chriſts ſoul was given for our ſouls, his fleſh for our fleſh, as Cyril ſaith, thereby to ſet forth the proportion of Gods juſtice, which muſt be ſatisfied with the price both of body and ſoul for the redemption of our body and ſoul, yet we do not ſever nor divide the power and vertue of Chriſts ſacrifice, but aſcribe the Redemption of our body and ſoul jointly and equally to the ſacrifice of his body and ſoul.
Dialogu. This kinde of reaſoning is very abſurd, for as Mr. Broughton well obſerveth, if Chriſt ſuffered the wrath of God in his ſoul only, to redeem our ſouls, and not in his body to redeem our bodies, then our bodies are not redeemed.
Anſw. The Dialogues kinde of reaſoning is worſe then very abſurd, that firſt puts untruly upon Divines the affirmation of an errour, and then cenſureth them as if that errour were theirs: making them firſt guilty by an untruth, and then cenſuring them as truly guilty.
Dialogu If Chriſt ſuffered the wrath of God in his ſoul to redeem our ſouls from the eternall curſe, he must alſo ſuffer the wrath of God in his body to redeem our bodies from the eternall curſe, or elſe our bodies muſt still continue under the eternal curſe, though our ſouls be redeemed by his ſoul-ſufferings: Is not this to make Chriſt an imperfect Redeemer, and to leave a doubting conſcience in a Labyrinth of doubts and querg's?
Anſw. Whileſt you ſay, If Chriſt ſuffered the wrath of God in his ſoul, what is this but to deceive your leſſe attentive Reader into a better opinion of your errour by a ſcoffing inference (for you beleeve not that Chriſt ſuffered the wrath of God in his ſoul) added to an untruth immediatly fore-going.Perkins on the Creed. Such weapons diſcovered will turn upon the Authour. We beleeve and have already affirmed, that Chriſt ſuffered the full wrath of God, even the pangs of hell, both in ſoul and body; it concerns therefore the Reader to beware of that Dialogue, and the Authour thereof to look to himſelf, that whilſt it ſaith, To make Chriſt to ſuffer the wrath of God only in his ſoul and not in his body, is to make him an imperfect Redeemer, and to leave a doubting conſcience in a labyrinth of doubts and quere's, doth it ſelf deny Chriſt to have ſuffered the wrath of God either in ſoul or body. Is not this to make Chriſt no redeemer, and to leave a doubting conſcience in a labyrinth not of doubts and quere's, but of deſpair it ſelf?
Dialogu The truth is, I finde much uncertainty amongſt Divines what to affirm in this point, for firſt, ſome affirm that Chriſt ſuffered the wrath of God in his ſoul only. Secondly, Others affirm that he ſuffered the wrath of God as well in his body as in his ſoul, to redeem our bodies from Gods wrath as well as our ſouls.
Anſw. That the latter is affirmed by Divines we have already ſeen; we expect to hear from you who are thoſe Divines which affirm that Chriſt ſuffered the wrath of God in his ſoul only.
Dialogu. Ʋrſinus doth plainly deny that Chriſt ſuffered the pains of the damned in his body, in Catech. pa. 487. Printed 1611. Theſe pains (ſaith he) he ſuffered not in his body, for the ſufferings of his body were only externall, therefore (ſaith he) he ſuffered thoſe pains in his ſoul; And yet in the ſame Catechiſme, pag. 487. he affirmeth, That Chriſt ſuffered thè wrath of God both in his body and in his ſoul, to deliver our ſouls and bodies from eternall damnation.
Anſw. There is much difference between a contradiction and a deniall. If he denieth that Chriſt ſuffered the pains of the damned either in body or ſoul,Chriſtus corpore & animâ ſentit totalem Dei iram, explicat. Catechiſ. part. 2. qu. 37. q. 1. pag. 256. Idem ibid. qu. 44. pag. 277. as you affirm, in ſo ſaying, he ſaith the truth, with divers others, who diſtinguiſh between the pains of thoſe who deſerved to be damned, namely, the Elect, and the pains of the damned, and judiciouſly reſolve that it is better to ſay Chriſt ſuffered the pains of thoſe who were to be damned according to their deſerts, that is, the eſſentiall puniſhment due unto the Elect for their ſins, then that he ſuffered the puniſhment of the damned, part whereof, though not the ſubſtantiall but circumſtantial, is their totall and finall ſeparation from God, ſinne, deſpair, duration of the torments for ever, &c. none of which Chriſt ſuffered.
Thoſe Divines that thus interpret the Articles of Chriſts deſcent into hell, concerning ſoul-ſufferings of Gods wrath, diſtinguiſh the ſufferings of Chriſt into outward, intended by them in thoſe words [he was crucified, dead and buried] and inward,Nempe omnes poeuae damnatorum his duobus continentur geueribus, ut aliae pertincant ad corpus, alia ad animam. intended in thoſe words [he deſcended into hell] which is a diſtribution in reſpect of the ſubject, and not of the adjunct, as you miſtake, and is as if they ſhould ſay, The paenall wrath of God or hell-pains which Chriſt ſuffered were either outward, viz. ſuch as he ſuffered in body, or inward, viz. ſuch as he ſuffered in ſoul, and this article of his deſcent into hell ſignifieth his inward pains, namely, thoſe which he ſuffered in ſoul and not in his body. Ʋrſin thus intends, and is, and ought to be ſo underſtood, and ſo agreeth both with the truth and with himſelf.
Dialogu The like contradiction may be ſhewed in ſundry other Authours; Polanus divides the ſufferings of Christ into outward and inward, and he applieth his ſufferings of hell-torments to his inward ſoul ſufferings only; See his Subſtance of Religion, pag. 141.144.
Anſw. As you miſtook Ʋrſin, ſo you miſtake Polanus, the ſame anſwer is to be repeated in the ſame caſe. Polanus in oppoſition to Bellarmine, and ſome other late Popiſh Writers, who teach, that Chriſt ſuffered not the wrath of God in his ſoul, propounds this queſtion, v. Whether the alone paſſion and death of the body of Chriſt was ſufficient puniſhment for us, and the ſatisfaction of an infinite price? and reſolveth it negatively, proving the ſatisfactory paſſion of Chriſt to be both outward and inward of both body aad ſoul, as is plain to the Reader, though (the nature of the diſpute ſo requiring) he applieth himſelf principally to prove the ſoul-ſufferings of Chriſt. You have not yet produced an Orthodox Authour that ſaith Chriſt ſuffered the wrath of God in his ſoul only.
Dialogu. We ſee but in part and know but in part; God hath ſome truth to bring to light in every age; the common doctrine of imputation hath much obſcured the meritorious price of our redemption and juſtification.
Anſw. We doubt not but God doth clear his truth more and more in every age, neither do we doubt of fundamentall truth continuing the ſame to his in all ages. As at the coming of Chriſt, Satan oppoſed the true Chriſt with raiſing up falſe Chriſts, ſo at the breaking forth of the light, he oppoſeth the true light by falſe lights. If the doctrine of the Dialogue brought to the fiery triall be found to be darkneſſe, and ours to be light; it deeply concerneth the Authour timouſly to remember that of the Prophet; Wo be to them that put darkneſſe for light, and light for darkneſſe, Iſa. 5.20.
Dialogu. Others alledge the Article of Chriſts Deſcent, to prove, that Chriſt ſuffered the torments of hell in his ſoul for our Redemption; but the truth is, the Article ſpeaks only of his ſouls paſſage from his body to Haides, which hath a double lot (when it is applied to the ſouls departed) a place of joy and a place of torment, ſo that all ſouls both good and bad go to Haides as ſoon as they are ſeparated from the body: the bad do go to the place of torment in Haides, and the good go to the place of pleaſure in Haides; therefore ſeeing Chriſt was a good man, even the Holy One of God, he muſt needs go to the place of pleaſure in Haides, even to the Paradiſe, Luk. 23.43. and that Haides doth comprehend in it a double lot (as Britain doth comprehend England and Scotland) is evident by the uſe of the Greek word in ſundry Greek Authours, and according to this ſenſe M. Robert Wilmot hath expounded this Article, wherein he doth alſo approve of the judgement of M. Broughton in his Expoſition of this Article.
Anſw. This Article of the Creed is not found in the Scripture in terms,foreign Sym. Apoſ. foreign. Sym. Atha. Nempe quia eſsentia illorum eſt per ſe foreign, & ſtatus foreign, & locus foreign. Jun. cont. 2. l. 4. c. 14. though the Orthodox ſenſe of it is taught therein clearly and plentifully. The Learned obſerve above threeſcore Creeds of the moſt ancient Councels and Fathers, that want this clauſe, and amongſt them the Nicene Creed. The Article of the Creed ſaith not that Chriſt deſcended into Haides but into Hades. It is true, that Haides in reſpect of its Etymology is uſed in a large ſignification by both divine and ſecular Authours, for an inviſible place and condition, and in this ſenſe it is applicable to all ſouls departed whether good or bad, becauſe the Being, State, and Place of both are inviſible to us.
The Authour of the Dialogue perceiving the large uſe of the word, very unwarrantably ventures to ſay the Article of the Creed ſpeaks only of his ſouls paſſage from his body to Haides: Sciendum ſanè eſt, quod in Eccleſiae Romanae ſymbolo non habetur additum, de ſcendit ad inferos, ſed neque in orientis Eccleſiis habetur hic ſermo, vis tamen verbi eadem videtur eſſe in eo quod ſepultus dicitur.For
1. The word in the Creed is doubtleſſe to be interpreted according to ſome ſenſe wherein it is uſed in the Scripture, where it is taken for the grave, Act. 2.27. for hell Rev. 20.13, 14. but never in this ſenſe uſed by the Dialogue,
2. From the incongruity of the words ſo underſtood; It were not proper to ſay he deſcended, but he aſcended into the place of joy, viz. the celeſtiall Paradiſe.
Laſtly, the Ancients though they knew the large uſe of the word Hades, yet did not take it in the Creed according to the expoſition of the Dialogue. Ruffinus ſaith, directly that theſe words, He deſcended into hell, are not found in the Creed of the Romane Church, nor uſed in the Churches of the Eaſt, and if they be, that then they ſignifie the buriall of Chriſt.