The Sufferings of Christ, Part 1 · Chapter 13
CHAP. XIII. Of the Dialogues arguments taken from the deſcription of the torments of hell; and from the place of ſuffering the torments of the damned.
Dialogu. BY deſcribing the torments of hell you ſhall be the better able to judge whether Chriſt did ſuffer the torment of hell for our Redemption, or not. The torments of hell are uſually divided into two paerts. 1. Into the pain of leſſe. 2. Into the pain of ſenſe. The pain of loſſe is the privation of Gods favour, by a everlaſting ſeparation.
Anſw. The rule which Logicians give concerning definitions is to be attended to concerning deſcriptions (which are imperfect definitions) A little errour in the beginning, in a ſhort time becometh a great one,Error definiendi exiguus, brevi fit ingens. and encreaſeth as the Diſpute encreaſeth.
Pain of loſſe and Pain of ſenſe make up the torments of hell. Pain of loſſe then being but a part of the curſe or puniſhment, the part is to be diſtinguiſhed according to the whole, as the puniſhment is taken either eſſentially for ſuch executions of juſtice as flow from the curſe, as ſuch, viz. the not enjoying of ought of the good of the promiſes, and the ſuffering of all the ſubſtantiall poſitive evill of the curſe, without any reſpect unto the condition of the Patient, or accidentally for ſuch executions of juſtice as are inſeparable concomitants of the ſtate of the damned, yet flow not from the ſimple nature of the curſe, but in reſpect of the condition of the patient, viz. total and final ſeparation from God, &c. of which oft above.
The Favour of God is taken largely for the effects of his common bounty; ſo the wicked are for their ſin ſeparated from the favour of God; or it is taken properly for the ſpeciall love of God, namely Election: ſo the wicked cannot be ſaid to be ſeparated from him: the Legall diſcovenanting of the Reprobate for their ſin which they have committed, is the effect of juſtice; that being diſcovenanted they fall into the bottomleſſe pit, is alſo an effect of juſtice; but totality and finality of their disunion with God without recovery by the covenant of grace, is a conſequent of Reprobation.
This premiſed, the errour of the deſcription is manifeſt, which holds only concerning the pain of loſſe, as it is an accidentall part of puniſhment, and belongs to the Reprobate, but not as it is of the eſſence of puniſhment, in which ſenſe it is only true of Chriſt.
The deſcription of the pain of loſſe, viz. that it is the privation of Gods favour by an eternall Separation, is untrue, imperfect, and impertinent.
Firſt, It is untrue, becauſe
1. It affirmeth a privation of Gods favour, where Gods favour never was, which is as if we ſhould in Logick ſuppoſe a privation where never was an habit.
2. Becauſe it ſuppoſeth Gods not loving i. e. his hatred of Reprobation to be an effect of juſtice (for pain of loſſe is an effect of juſtice) whereas Reprobation is an act of Lordſhip not of Juſtice.
Secondly, It is imperfect, leaving out the privation of the good of the promiſes, wherein conſiſts the pain of loſſe eſſentially and principally.
Thirdly, It is impertinent holding only (as we ſaw before) concerning the pain of loſſe accidentally but not eſſentially; though this laſt be the only and very queſtion between us.
This deſcription of the Dialogue laid as a foundation of the following Diſcourſe, being overthrown, what we ſhall finde built thereupon muſt needs fall with it; which before we proceed unto, it may be ſeaſonable here to preſent the Reader with a true deſcription of the pain of loſs in ſtead of this erroneous deſcription of the Authour.
The pain of loſſe taken eſſentially, is an univerſall privation of the fruition of the good of the promiſe.
The pain of loſſe taken eſſentially and circumſtantially is the univerſall privation of the fruition of the good of the promiſe, together with the totall and finall abſence of thoſe good things which flow not from the curſe as ſuch, but are effects of juſtice upon the damned, in reſpect of the condition of the Patient, viz. dis-union with God, privation of his image in the ſoul, and deſperation.
Dialogu For as the favour of God through Chriſt is the fountain of life, becauſe it is the beginning of eternal life, Pſa 36.9. ſo on the contrary to be totally ſeparated from Gods favour by an eternall ſeparation, muſt needs be the beginning of hell-torments or of death eternall.
Anſw. If the Dialogue intends the favour of God to be the beginning of eternall life only cauſally, then this compariſon is inſtituted between the formall beginning of eternall death, and the cauſall beginning of eternall life; ſo it is vain as to the purpoſe intended; if it intends the favour of God in Chriſt, taken properly, to be the beginning of eternall life formally, then it is falſe, for the favour of God in Chriſt which is the fountain of life, is increated; and without beginning, and is nothing elſe but Election, the firſt cauſe of our good. Eternall life whoſe beginning and continuance is of the ſame nature, is created and hath a beginning though it be without an end, and is the effect of this firſt cauſe: the Dialogue therefore confounding the favour of God with the beginning of eternall life formally, doth as much as ſay the cauſe is the effect, and that which is increated is created. If the compariſon were in it ſelf good, yet it is impertinent, concluding only concerning the pain of loſſe taken accidentally, not as taken eſſentially: which laſt muſt alwaies be remembred to be the ſenſe of the Queſtion.
Dialogu. God doth not forſake the Reprobates ſo long as they live in this life, with ſuch a totall forſaking, as he doth after this life: yea, the very Devils, themſelves as long as they live in this world (being Spirits) in the air, are not ſo forſaken of God as they ſhall be at the day of judgement; for as yet they are not in hell, but in this air, and therefore they have not their full torments as yet.
Anſw. Then the pain of loſſe conſiſts not in the meer want of the favour or love of God; for the Reprobates whether men or devils in this life, or in the air, are alwaies hated of God. Gods love and hatred are eternall and immutable.
Vide Piſc. in 2 Pet. 2.4.The devils being deprived of the image of God after which they were created, and being under a degree of eternal death, in reſpect of their malice, final deſpair, and preſent ſufferings in part, their condition doubtleſſe is rather a condition of death then of life.
The Dialogue needleſly here ventureth to tell us that the devils are not in hell, though Peter ſaith, God caſt them down to hell, and John telleth us, Rev. 20.3. that the devil was bound a thouſand years, and caſt into the bottomleſſe pit, the ſame word with that which is uſed by the Legion of devils concerning the place they feared, when they beſought Chriſt, that he would not command them thither, Luke 8.31.
Dialogu. And yet this pain of loſſe may a little further be explained by opening the term Second death, which may be in part deſcribed by comparing it with the firſt death, which I have at large deſcribed to be our ſpirituall death, or a loſſe of the life of our firſt pure nature, I may call it a death in corrupt and ſinfull qualities, as I have opened, Gen. 2.17. yea, all other miſeries which fall upon us in this life till our bodies be rotten in the grave, I call them altogether the firſt death, becauſe they do all befall us in this world; therefore on the contrary the ſecond death muſt needs imply a deeper degree of ſinful qualities then did befal us under the firſt death.
Anſw. Whether eternall death be called the ſecond death to contra-diſtinguiſh it from the death of the body, or death in ſin, or both, as the firſt death; As it is not materiall to the point in hand, ſo neither need we labour about it, though the Text Mat. 10.28. ſeemeth rather to oppoſe it to the death of the body by its ſeparation from the ſoul, as alſo the coherence, Rev. 2.13. & 20.6, 14. And if the firſt death is taken for death in ſin; and the full meaſure of ſin, as the Dialogue ſpeaketh, be included in the ſecond death, the oppoſition lieth rather between a bodily death and eternall death, then between the firſt and ſecond death, for ſo far the firſt and ſecond death are as two degrees of the ſame death, not two kindes of death; whereas bodily death and eternall death are two kindes of death. Yea foraſmuch as eternall death followeth bodily death, and bodily death followeth death in ſin, there would then be three deaths, viz. death in ſin, death of the body, and death of the body and ſoul in hell, and ſo it ſhould be called the third, not the ſecond death.
Dialogu. And thus this very term Second death doth plainly tell us that it is ſuch a degree of death as ſurpaſſeth all the degrees of death in this life, and that the full meaſure of it cannot be inflicted upon any man till this life is ended, and then their end ſhal be without mercy, Jam. 2.13.
Anſw. The term [Second] being a word of order, teacheth that eternal death, in that it is called the ſecond death is in Gods ordinary diſpenſation inflicted after the firſt death, but it ſhews not the nature of eternal death. The reaſon why eternal death is inflicted after the ſeparation of the ſoul from the body, is partly becauſe of the inability of the nature of man in this preſent ſtate of mortality to endure the wrath of God without ſeparation of the ſoul from the body, but chiefly becauſe this bodily death puts a period to our capacity of having any part in the firſt reſurrection, i.e. of regeneration, whereby the ſecond death is only prevented.
Though for theſe and other reaſons the paenall wrath of God, viz. eternall death be inflicted after bodily death, yet it thence followeth not that the paenall wrath of God cannot be inflicted but according to this order (which is the ſcope of the Dialogue in this diſcourſe) for order of ſucceſſion is not of the eſſence of puniſhment. Again, the reaſons that require this order in the Reprobates in inflicting paenall wrath upon the damned, have no place concerning Chriſt. Adde hereunto, that according to extraordinary diſpenſation, ſome of the Reprobates, namely, thoſe that ſhall be found alive immediatly before the Judgement, 1 Cor. 15.51. ſhall ſuffer eternall death without any ſeparation of the ſoul from the body, ſo as eternall death which is a finall ſeparation of the ſoul and body from God, being oppoſed to naturall death which is a ſeparation of the ſoul from the body, is not neceſſarily a ſecond death, no, not in the Reprobates.
Dialogu. The ſecond part of the tormentt of hell is the pain of ſenſe, or the ſenſe of all torturing torments.
Anſw. As we did formerly in the pain of loſſe, ſo now in the pain of ſenſe, we are to diſtinguiſh between what is eſſentiall and what is accidentall thereunto,Fallacia compoſitionis & div ſionis. otherwiſe the Queſtion intending that which is eſſentiall only, but the deſcription including both that which is eſſentiall and accidentall, is apt to deceive the Reader by a fallacy, for the better preventing whereof, as before the Reader had a deſcription of the pain of loſſe, ſo let him here if he pleaſe take along with him this deſcription of the pain of ſenſe.
The pain of ſenſe taken eſſentially is the infl…cting of all the ſubſtantiall poſitive evill of the curſe flowing from it as ſuch without any reſpect to the condition of the patient.
The pain of ſenſe taken eſſentially and accidentally ſuperaddeth unto the eſſential puniſhment fore-mentioned, the ſuffering of ſuch poſitive puniſhments as were concomitant effects of juſtice in reſpect of the diſpoſition of the patient, viz. the evil of ſin, deſperation, duration of the pains for ever, &c.
Dialogu. As Gods rejection is the principall efficient cauſe of their damnation, ſo Jeſus Chriſt the Mediatour is the principall inſtrumentall cauſe thereof, becauſe they beleeved not in him that was promiſed to be the ſeed of the woman.
Anſw. Gods rejection that is Reprobation as it is the Antecedent not the cauſe of ſin, ſo it is alſo the Antecedent not the cauſe of condemnation. Reprobation is an act of abſolute Lordſhip and Soveraignty, not of Juſtice; Condemnation that is the judiciall ſen…encing unto puniſhment for ſin, is an act of Juſtice not of Lordſhip: no Reprobate ſuffers the ſmart of his finger becauſe a Reprobate, but becauſe a ſinner.
Dialogu. Now come we to examine the particulars, and whether Christ did ſuffer theſe torments of hell for our Redemption. 1. Did Chriſt ſuffer theſe torments of hell for our Redemption? Did Chriſt ſuffer the ſecond death? Was he ſpiritually dead in corrupt and ſinfull qualities without any reſtraining grace? and did God leave him to the liberty of theſe corrupt and ſinfull qualities, to hate and blaſpheme God, for his juſtice and holineſſe, as inſeparable companions of Gods totall ſeparation? for theſe ſinful qualities are inſeparably joyned to them that ſuffer hell-torments, as the effect is to the cauſe. Did Chriſt ſuffer this pain of loſſe when he ſaid, My God, my God, why haſt thou forſaken me?
Anſw. Except the Dialogue had laid a better foundation for the diſproving of Chriſts ſuffering the paenal wrath of God flowing from the curſe as ſuch, without any conſideration of the condition of the Patient, that is the eſſentiall puniſhment, then ſuch a deſcription as diſproveth only his ſuffering of the circumſtantiall part of the puniſhment, theſe vain and reaſonleſſe interrogatories, as ſo many triumphs before the victory might well have been ſpared.
There are that deny that the damned ſinne, whom though I ſee not why to conſent unto therein, yet it concerned ſuch a Queſtioniſt (though that being done, his work had ſtill been to do) to have ſatisfied their objections by the way. The ſinfull qualities of the damned proceed not from hell-torments as an effect from the cauſe;Parker de deſcenſu. lib 3. the torments of hell are an effect and execution of juſtice, whereof God is the Authour; ſinfull qualities are a defect not an effect; therefore have a deficient not an efficient cauſe, therefore of them God cannot be the Authour: to to ſay the contrary, were to ſay, God is the Authour of ſin, which is high blaſphemy: Sinfull qualities are of the circumſtantiall not of the ſubſtantiall part of puniſhment, which is manifeſt. 1. Becauſe God is the Authour of puniſhment eſſentially, but he is not the authour of ſin. 2. Chriſt ſuffered the eſſentiall puniſhment, but was without ſin. 3. The Elect ſin, yet ſuffer not the puniſhment due to ſinne, otherwiſe they ſhould be both elected and not elected, and in the concluſion both ſaved and damned.
In that Propoſition, God puniſheth ſin with ſin, the futurition of ſin is to be diſtinguiſhed from ſin it ſelf, the infallible and paenall futurition of ſin is an effect of juſtice. Sin as ſin is not an effect of juſtice but a defect in man.
Though the ſeparation of the damned from God is totall and finall, yet the ſeparation or rather deſertion of Chriſt was partiall and temporall, in reſpect of the ſenſe of the favour of God, and only for a time.
Separatio quoad ſubſtantiam, & quoad ſenſum. Wilict cen. 5. err. 3. par. 9. q. 3. 1141.There are two kindes of paenall deſertion or forſaking; one is only in part and for a time, ſo Chriſt was forſaken; the other is totall and finall, ſo the Reprobates in hell are forſaken. Totall ſeparation from God is not of the eſſence of the curſe, Gen. 2.17. Otherwiſe the Elect whilſt elect could not be miniſterially obnoxious to the Curſe.
In a word, we muſt carefully keep in minde the diſtinction between the eſſentiall part, and the circumſtantiall part of the puniſhment of ſin, Chriſt ſuffered the former, not the latter. Defects ſaith Damaſoone are either ſimply miſerable, or deteſtable and vitious, Chriſt ſuffered the former not the latter. When our Lord Jeſus Chriſt that man of ſorrows cried out upon the Croſſe, My God, My God, Auſtin. Damaſcen. Jun. cont. 2. l. 4. c. 5.why haſt thou forſaken me? he ſuffered the pain of loſſe, underſtanding alwaies thereby the ſubſtantial not the circumſtantial pain of loſſe.
Dialogu. Did Chriſt at any time feel the gnawing worm of an accuſing conſcience? Was he at any time under the torment of deſperation? truly if he had at any time ſuffered the tormets of hell, he muſt of neceſſity have ſuffered theſe things: Tho. par. 3. q. 46. art. 6. Perk. de deſc. l. 3. n. 53. Willet cen. 5. err. 3. par. 6. q. 3. 1129. Neque enim in eo, queſtionis hujus cardo vertitur an inhaeſivè, verum an imputativè tantum peccatis noſtris pollu us Chriſtus dicendus ſit Dialogu.for they are as nearly joyned to thoſe that ſuffer the torment of hell as the effect is to the cauſe.
Anſw. Guilt is either taken for the perſonal commiſſion of ſin, or for a perſonall obligation unto puniſhment (upon our voluntary taking thereof) for the ſin committed by another; in the laſt ſenſe only Chriſt was guilty of ſin, that is, he was guilty imputatively, not inherently: as Chriſt was guilty of ſin, ſo alſo he was ſenſible of an accuſing Conſcience. If Chriſt (ſaith D Willet) truly bare our ſins, he ſuſtained alſo the grief of conſcience for them, which is the inſeparable companion of our ſin. The queſtion is not, Whether Chriſt be polluted with our ſin inherently, but only whether he may be ſaid to be polluted with our ſin imputatively. Deſperation is not of the eſſence, but accidental, in paenal wrath, The reſt is but a repetition of what was ſaid, and alſo anſwered a little before.
Did Chriſt ſuffer the torments of hell in the proper place of hell? ſeeing none can ſuffer the torments of hell as long as they live in this world, none can ſuffer the ſecond death till after this life is ended.
Anſw. The place of puniſhment is not of the eſſence of puniſhment, as the place of the third heaven is not of the eſſence of bleſſedneſſe, ſo neither is the place of the damned of the eſſence of miſery.
As the Manhood of Chriſt was partaker of the joys of heaven out of the place of heaven (if not at other times, as Luk 9.28. yet) after the Reſurrection; ſo might it ſuffer the pains of hell out of the place of hell. The priſon is no part of the eſſentiall debt. The moſt Popiſh enemies of Chriſts ſoul-ſufferings of the wrath of God (whileſt, though in their erroneous aſſerting the locall deſcent, they affirm an actuality concerning Chriſts being in the place of hell without the pains of hell,) cannot with any reaſon deny a poſſibility of being in the pains of hell without the place of hell.
Vide Rivet …athol. orth. …o. 1. tract. …. q. 60.Chriſt was in a paenall hell, not in a locall hell; the diſtinction between a paenall hell and a locall hell is nor only acknowledged unto this day by the Orthodox, but was long ago taught by ſundry of the Learned and ſounder Schoolmen.
The diſpenſation of God is either extraordinary or ordinary: according to the ordinary diſpenſation of God, the full pains of hell are not ſuffered in this life; but according to the extraordinary diſpenſation of God, Chriſt not only could but did ſuffer the pains of hell in this life. Many Reprobate ſuffer the pains of hell here in a degree. The Reprobate, as was ſaid before, that ſhall be found alive, 1 Cor. 15.51. ſhall paſſe into the pains of hell without any ſeparation of the ſoul from the body.
Dialogu Did Chriſt ſuffer the torments of hell in his body as well as in his ſoul, to redeem our bodies as well as our ſouls from the torments of hell?
Anſw. We have already ſeen that Chriſt ſuffered the torments of hell in his body as well as in his ſoul; as it is evident that Chriſt ſuffered the torments of hell, for kinde in his ſoul, ſo who can deny but he ſuffered alſo bodily torments equivalent to the torments of hell, though not inflicted after the ſame manner.
August. de Civit. Dei. l. 21. c. 10.All the flames of hell are not corporeall and materiall, witneſſe that fire wherein the rich man was tormented, ſuch as his eyes and tongue were, ſuch was the flame, Luk. 16.23, 24.Willet. ſyn. 20. gen. cont. qu. 3. par. 4. Thoſe flames of hell which torment the bodies of the damned (though juſtly acknowledged to be materiall) are materiall after a ſpirituall manner. They therefore are not to be heard who object againſt Chriſts ſuffering hell-pains in his body, becauſe there was no viſible inſtrument of ſuch bodily pain.
If any ſay his bodily pains were not equall to the bodily pains of them that are in hell, that being granted to them therein which they are unable to prove, it is ſufficient to integrate and make up the execution of the full meaſure of wrath upon Chriſt, that if his bodily torments were not equall to the bodily torments of the damned, yet what was not executed upon his body, was executed upon his ſoul. The meaſure of hell-pains is made up without bodily pains in the Angels that fell, and if haply ſome mindes labour concerning the capacity of the ſoul of a meer man, to hold ſuch a meaſure of torment, they may remember that the ſoul of Chriſt who is both God and Man is above that objection, exceeding the capacity of all Men and Angels by reaſon of his perſonall union.
Dialogu. How long did he ſuffer the torments of hell? was it for ever? or how long did he ſuffer them? and when did the torments of hell first ſeize on him? and when was be found freed from them? or did he ſuffer the torments of hell at ſeverall times or in ſeverall places, or but at one time or place only?
Anſw. His ſufferings though temporall in reſpect of duration were eternall in efficacy in reſpect of the eminency of the Perſon, it was more for an infinite perſon to ſuffer for a time, then for all finite perſons to ſuffer for ever. Chriſt ſuffered the torments of hell upon the Croſſe, where he bare the moral curſe, Gal. 3.13. and in the garden, Mat. 26. though his ſufferings in the garden and upon the Croſſe, are the principal, and therefore called the Paſſion emphatically, yet the reſt of his ſufferings from his conception unto his paſſion are integral parts thereof, that is, ſuch without which his paſſive obedience is not compleated,
He was freed from them at his death, Job. 19.30. he was freed from the ſenſible part of his ſufferings at his death, from ſufferings ſimply at his Reſurrection.
That Chriſt ſuffered the torments of hell is revealed, which is the queſtion, though many circumſtances of time and place are not revealed. Theſe are impertinent and captious quere's.
Dialogu Was he tormented without any forgiveneſſe, or did Abraham deny him the leaſt drop of water to cool his tongue?
Anſw. Chriſt was tormented without any forgiveneſſe, God ſpared him nothing of the due debt, Rom. 8.32. Mat. 26.39. but God gave him a diſcharge when the debt was paid, Iſa. 53.10. Col. 2.14. He had not then ſo much as the leaſt drop of water to eaſe him of the leaſt particle of ſuffering due unto him according to juſtice, but was wholly forſaken in reſpect of any participation of the ſenſe of the good of the promiſe for the time, Mat. 27.46.
Dialogu Did Chriſt inflict the torments of hell upon his own humane nature? was his Divine nature angry with his humane nature? or did his Divine nature forſake his humane nature in anger? as it muſt have done if it had ſuffered the torments of hell; if ſo, then he deſtroyed the perſonall union of his two natures, and then he made himſelf no Mediatour but a curſed damned ſinner.
Anſw. The ſecond Perſon of the Trinity is to be conſidered according to his ſubſiſtence in the Divine nature only, or as he ſubſiſts in perſonall union with the man-hood: In the firſt conſideration, He together with the Father and the holy Ghoſt did inflict the torments of hell upon the humane nature. All the works of the Trinity upon the creature, whereof this is one, Iſa. 53.10. Mat. 26.31. are undivided, that is, they are wrought by all the perſons jointly. In this conſideration alſo the divine nature was angry not only with the humane nature, but with the perſon of the Mediator, becauſe of ſin imputed to him, and forſook him with a temporall and partiall deſertion. But hence in no waies followeth the diſſolution of the perſonall union; as the body and ſoul of Chriſt ſeparated one from the other continued in perſonall union, ſo the ſoul and body ſeparated from all participation of the good of the promiſe for the while, were without diſſolution of the Perſonall Union.
The execution of the evil of the curſe denieth communion but not union with God. The evil of the commination denounced and incurred, as touching our legall obnoxiouſneſſe thereunto, diſſolveth not the union of the Elect with God in the everlaſting covenant of grace, nor doth the denouncing, incurring the danger, and undergoing of the puniſhment diſſolve the union of the election of Chriſt, Iſa. 42.1. much leſſe doth it diſſolve the perſonal union.
The Second Perſon conſidered as ſubſiſting in perſonall union with the manhood,Mediatio propriè & analogicè. Wolleb. and as Mediatour is properly Chriſt, and ſo though the manhood only ſuffered, yet the Perſon that ſuffered being God-man the perſon of the Mediatour, and conſequently the Divine nature by way of voluntary diſpenſation was ſubject to the Divine nature conſidered abſolutely and in it ſelf.
Dialogu Theſe and ſuch like groſſe abſurdities the common doctrine of imputation will often fall into.
Anſw. That the received and common doctrine of imputation ſtandeth firm and upright upon the Scriptures of truth, without falling or leaning to, into, or unto any abſurdities or inconveniences hath (we hope) been ſufficiently cleared, That ſuch and the like unworthy aſperſions wherewith the great doctrine of imputation, through the grace of Chriſt generally received amongſt all that are worthy to be called Chriſtians, and therefore truly (though not without appearance of too much irreverence) by this diſcorſe called [Common] is frequently and ignorantly blaſphemed in the Dialogue, may be ſhook off, as Paul ſhook off the viper. ſo as the [Common] doctrine of imputation may hereby ſhine more gloriouſly, as a part of the [Common faith] Tit. 1.4. is the further bleſſing of God,
That the Authour of this Treatiſe may ariſe not only out of thoſe abſurdities, but alſo out of thoſe hereſies into which the Dialogue ſheweth him to be fallen, is and ſhall be our praiers, and the rather are we encouraged that God will have mercy upon him herein, becauſe we hope he did it ignorantly and through an erring conſcience.
Dialogu Christ could not ſuffer any part of the Torments of hell as long as he lived in this world, becauſe the very devils as long as they live in this air do not ſuffer the torments of hell, as it is evident by the fearfull crying out to Chriſt, Mat. 8.29.
Anſw. The full torments of hell are not inflicted upon the devils before the day of Judgement, Mat. 8.29. yet how can he that reades Jam. 2.19. 2 Pet, 3.4. Jude 6. deny the torments of hell to be inflicted in part upon them before the day of judgement: the cauſe why the devils ſuffer not the torments of hell fully or in part, is not becauſe they are in the air, but from the wiſe diſpenſation of God. But why the Authour of the Dialogue who thinks the place of hell to be on high before the Throne of the Lamb, yea, ſo near to the place of the bleſſed, as that the bleſſed and damned may talk together, ſhould look at the air as a priviledged place from torment, or as uncapable to become a place of torment, I ſee no colour of reaſon; The reſt is but a repetition of what hath been ſaid before and anſwerd before.
Dialogu. M, Broughton in a Manuſcript ſaith thus: No words in all the Bible do expreſſe any thing, that Chriſt ſuffered the wrath of God for our ſins, therefore it is no ſmall impiety for men from generall metaphoricall terms to gather ſuch a ſtrange particular: none that ever ſpake Greek (Spirit or man) gathered hell torments for the juſt from Haides, or from any other Greek or Hebrew Text. Again, the ſame Authour affirmeth in Rev. 11.7, that hell-place and torments are not in this life.
Anſw. That Chriſts ſuffering of the wrath of God is by juſt and manifeſt conſequence plentifully held forth in the Scriptures is to us undoubted (and I hope fully and clearly evinced) the deniall whereof is not only no ſmall but a great impiety.
Though the place of the damned who ſuffer the wrath of God be included in Haides, taken in its largeſt ſignification both by divine and ſecular authors, as any that know not already may ſoon if they pleaſe inform themſelves: yet that ever any Orthodox indifferently-learned writer, thence gathered hell torments for the juſt, I do not beleeve is any where extant, except in that Manuſcript or the Dialogue.
We acknowledge readily the gifts of God in M. Broughton, and that he was an excellent Linguiſt, yet we do not beleeve that Greek and Hebrew dwelt with him. Iſaiah ſpeaking Hebrew by the Spirit of God telleth us that Chriſt ſuffered the wrath of God, Chap. 53. the like doth Paul ſpeaking Greek from the ſame ſpirit, 2 Cor. 5.21. Gal. 3.13. Doubtleſſe Iſaiah could ſpeak Hebrew, and Paul (who ſpake with tongues more then they all) could ſpeak Greek as well, and the Spirit of God by which they both ſpake, could ſpeak both Hebrew and Greek better then M. Broughton. Sure, the Authour is not of his minde whom Eraſmus obſerveth to have ſaid openly, that Paul was ignorant of the Greek Grammar.
Dialogu And truly it ſeems to me that the holy Scriptures do confine hell-torments to the proper place of hell it ſelf, which is ſeated on high before the Throne of the Lamb, Rev. 14.10. and Solomon doth tell us, that all mens ſouls both good and bad do aſcend, Eccl. 3.21. and the Hebrew Doctors hold generally that hell is above as well as heaven: and Learned M. Richardſon doth probably conjecture in his Philoſophical Annotations on Gen. 1. that hellplace is ſeated in the Element of fire, and why may it not be ſo, ſeeing its place is next before the Throne of the Lamb where John doth place it, Rev. 14.10. And it is certain by Lukes Parable that hell is ſeated near unto heaven, or elſe the compariſons that Luke uſeth to deſcribe their neerneſſe, were abſurd.
1. He deſcribes their neerneſſe by two perſons talking together, the one in heavenplace, and the other in hellplace.
2. He deſcribes their neerneſſe by ſeeing each others caſe, Luke 16. and ſo doth Iſaiah in cha. 66.24.
3. Hence we may ſee the reaſon why Haides is put as a common name to both places; both places are uſually called Haides in ſundry Greek Writers, as if they were but two Regions in the ſame world of ſouls: one Region for the godly, and the other for the wicked, where the godly and the wicked may ſee each others condition, and talk together in their next adjacent parts, Luk. 16.23.
Anſw. Whereſoever the place of hell is, is not materiall unto the Queſtion in hand, the Reader therefore might have been ſpared this longer diſcourſe; it is enough that Chriſt ſuffered the puniſhment though not in the ordinary place of puniſhment: It hath now been oft and again ſaid, the place of puniſhment is not of the eſſence of puniſhment; Joab ſuffered death though he ſuffered not in the common place of execution.
You may reade in Pemble that in Eccl. 3.21.Pemble on the place. to be the ſpeech of an Atheiſt againſt the aſſertion of the immortality of the ſoul, and principally both of the felicity and immortality of the ſouls of good men; For whereas (ſaith the Athieſt) men talk of an immortal ſoul of man, which ſevered from the body aſcends up to heaven, and that the ſoul of a bruit beaſt deſcends downward, that it falleth and periſheth together with the body; they do but ſpeak by gueſſe, who knows it? who ever ſaw it? what Anatomiſt can finde it out? The oppoſition then herein intended by the Athieſt, lieth not between the ſpirit of a beaſt, and the ſoul of man in generall, but between the ſoul of a beaſt, and the ſoul of ſuch men, which ſevered from their bodies aſcend up to heaven, that is, godly men, whoſe ſpirits return to God that gave them, Eccleſ. 12.7.Vide Piſc. in utrum que locum. If the aſcending of the ſpirit be extended unto the ſouls of the wicked, which upon their departure are (by ſome) thought immediatly to aſcend unto the place wherein God paſſeth judgement upon them, which done, they are delivered unto the hands of evil Angels to be carried forthwith into hell, which they judge to be below. This helpeth not you.
The place appointed for the ſufferings of the damned is in the Scripture called hell, Mat. 5.22. a Furnace of fire, Mat. 13.42. The place of torment, Luke 16.38. A priſon. 1 Pet. 3.19. A bottomleſſe pit, Rev. 9.1. A Lake of fire, Rev. 20.15. A Lake which burneth with fire and brimſtone, Rev. 21.8. ſome of which appellations argue that it is below, not on high, but the very place is not revealed.
I ſpare to recite the variety of the opinionss of the Learned concerning the place of hell, with ſuch reaſons as are moſt probable, not looking at it as pertinent to the controverſie. To ſearch out the place of hell, it not being revealed in the word, is curioſity; to labour according to what is written that we may not come in that place of torment, is our duty.
If hell were in Ariſtotles Element of fire (the very being of which ſounder Philoſophy denieth) yet if you hearkened either to the learned Philoſophers or Mathematicians who diſtinguiſh the heaven of the bleſſed, and this inferiour Univerſe into the viſible and inviſible world, and teach us, that there is a moſt vaſt (and unto the unlearned incredible) diſtance between the ſuppoſed Element of fire, and the firſt mover (what then is the diſtance beeween it and the heaven of heavens) you would not think that the bleſſed and damned could ſee and talk with one another.
Similitudo ſeu Parabola adaequetur principali ſcopo & intentioni declarantis, atque extra hanc non extendatur. Keck. log. l. 1. ſect. poſt. c. 4. Calv. in Lu. 16.23Your arguing the nearneſſe of heaven and hell from the conference of Abraham and Dives in the Parable, argueth that the rule of interpreting Parables was not attended by you herein, namely, that a ſimilitude or Parable is to be underſtood according to the principal ſcope and intention of the Authour, and not to be extended beyond it.
The compariſons of the Scripture abuſed, vexed, and ſtrained beyond the ſcope intended, have been the beginning and ſtrengthening of many errors and too many hereſies.
Calvin telleth you, That Chriſt by ſenſible figures doth here deſcribe ſpiritual things, Souls (ſaith he) have not fingers, eye, nor do they feel thirſt (I may adde) neither have they tongues to be tormented with flames, but the ſum is, Reſt is prepared for the ſouls of the faithfull departed, and torment for the ſouls of the Reprobate.
It cannot ſeem much, that he who forbeareth not to charge the Evangeliſts compariſon to be abſurd, except it bear his abſurd Expoſitions, doth ſo frequently burthen the doctrine of the generation of the godly both learned and unlearned, concerning the imputation of ſin unto Chriſt (being contrary to him) with abſurd conſequences.
I omit that the ſentence of condemnation is paſſed in the ſight of Chriſt, Angels, and the Saints. The ſight of Angels and Spirits is intellectual, ſeeing their objects by intelligible ſpecies, not ſenſible ſeeing their objects by ſenſible ſpecies, as our bodily eyes ſee ſenſible objects. The damned ſee Abraham, Iſaac, and Iacob in the Kingdom of heaven, Luk 13.28 not ſenſibly but mentally.
Chriſt in reſpect of his Divinity is preſent every where, and the humane by vertue of its Perſonall union, not only excelleth the underſtanding of Angels, but is alſo capable of ſeeing in the Divine nature whatever is thereby preſented unto it in a more excellent manner, then if it ſaw it in its proper object.
The word [Throne] is not in the Text, Rev. 14.10. but it is your addition haply to make your notion the more plauſible.
Of Haides we have ſpoken ſufficiently before.
Dialogu. It is evident that Chriſt did not ſuffer the torments of hell in this world, becauſe there was no neceſſary uſe or end of ſuch ſufferings, for ſuch ſufferings are no way ſatisfactory to the juſtice of God for our ſins: for the rule of Gods juſtice doth require that ſoul only to die which ſins, the ſoul that ſins ſhall die; one man ſhall not die for another mans ſin, Ezek, 18. By this rule of juſtice God cannot inflict the torments of hell upon an innocent to redeem a guilty perſon.
Anſw. The neceſſary uſe of his ſufferings was the Redemption of ſouls in a way of ſatisfaction unto juſtice. Hence the obedience of Chriſt is called righteouſneſſe, Rom. 5.18. noting an obedience ſatisfactory, according to order of juſtice. And we reade that he gave his life a ranſome for many, Mat. 20.28. a ranſome for all, 1 Tim. 2.6. that is, a ſufficient price for our deliverance from the curſe. He did not only ſuffer for our good, but in our place and ſtead; to this purpoſe we reade that he redeemed his people, and that we have redemption through his bloud, Luk. 1.68. and 2.38. Heb. 9.12. Col. 1.14. Heb. 9.15. which words note a juſt and ſatisfactoty price laid down for our ſins, therefore neceſſary, that remiſſion of ſins might be without any prejudice to the truth and juſtice of God.
Paul telleth us that God hath ſet forth Chriſt to be a propitiation, Rom. 3.25. The word is obſerved to ſignifie a juſt and propitiatory expiation of ſin.
Ezek. 18.20. argueth for, not againſt the juſtice of the death of Chriſt, The ſoul that ſinneth ſhall die, Good: Man ſinned, ergò man died. Chriſt was a ſinner imputatively, though not inherently, and the ſoul that ſinneth whether inherently or imputatively ſhall die.
Mors animae abſoluta vel bypothetica.The death of the ſoul is either abſolute, ſo none die but ſuch as are inherently guilty; or Hypothetical, viz. Cautionary, in way of a Surety, that undertakes for the ſatisfaction of juſtice: ſo Chriſt ſuffered death.Mors non conditionis ſed criminis. Park. l. 3. n. 87. Willet. cont. 5. Err. 3. part. 3. quaeſt. 3. Auſtin calleth it a death not of condition but of crime: It is clear according to this Text, that every one ſhall bear his own iniquity. Who ſeeth not (ſaith Dr Willet) that the Prophet maketh exception of the perſon of the Mediatour, for the Scripture teſtifieth of him, that he bare our iniquities, Iſa. 53.11. Therefore as he bare our ſins in himſelf, ſo alſo in Gods juſtice he was to bear the puniſhment for the ſame.
Yet neither according to this Rule nor any other Rule of juſtice can either the torments of hell or any other, no, not the leaſt puniſhment be inflicted upon a perſon ſimply innocent. Chriſt though he was innocent in himſelf, yet he was not innocent as our Surety until the guilt imputed to him was ſatisfied for.
It is no way repugnant to the juſtice of God, ſaith Ʋrſinus, and after him Paraeus, that a perſon innocent in himſelf ſhould die for the ſin of another, upon ſuch conditions as were mentioned Chap. 3.
Dialogu And as God doth tye himſelf to this Rule of iustice touching the everlaſting ſtate of mens ſouls, ſo he doth appoint civil Magiſtrates to obſerve this Rule of iuſtice touching the bodiet of ſinfull Malefactors, they may not puniſh an innocent for a guilty perſon, but that man only that ſins must die, as 2 Kin. 14. doth expound the meaning of the iudicial Law. in Deut. 24.16. I hold it a point of groſſe iniustice for any Court of Magiſtrates to torture an innocent perſon for the redemption of a groſſe Malefactor.
Anſw. It is manifeſt that as God according to his own free conſtitution doth not, ſo man according to Gods Law may not puniſh a perſon that is ſimply innocent, concerning ſuch an one that Law holds. Deut. 24.16. The fathers ſhall not be put to death for the children, neither ſhall the children be put to death for the fathers. Every man ſhall be put to death for his own ſin. But we muſt here diſtinguiſh between an inherent judiciall guilt, and an extrinſecal judiciall guilt: if Thomas be judicially guilty of a capitall crime inherently, though Peter be guiltleſſe thereof inherently, yet if he be guilty thereof extrinſecally, it ſeemeth to be no injuſtice for the Magiſtrate in caſe to put Peter to death for Thomas his crime.
In ſome caſes, ſaith D. Willet, Willet cen. 5. gen. cont. 20. part. 7. qu. 3.by the Law of God the ſurety gave life for life, as the Prophet ſheweth unto Ahab by this Parable, A man was taken in battel and committed to another to keep, under this condition, If he be loſt, thy life ſhall go for his life, or elſe thou ſhalt pay a Talent of ſilver: A price of equall value to his life that went away. But in the application of this Parable, the Prophet leaveth out the Talent becauſe God cannot be waged with money, and ſaith unto Ahab preciſely, thy life ſhall go for his life, 1 Kin. …0.39.42. The juſtice whereof Ahab himſelf (not yet conſidering it to be his own caſe) readily acknowledgeth and pronounceth ſentence accordingly, ver, 40.
Hoſtages or pledges, whoſe lives with their conſenr are legally engaged for the ſecurity of the faith of that ſtate whereof they are members, may lawfully be put to death, in caſe the ſtate, whoſe fidelity they are to ſecure, break their faith; for the conſequence or inconſequence of ſecuring or not ſecuring the fidelity of States, is a greater good or evil then the life or death of a pledge.
Beſides that, the part oweth it ſelf unto the preſervation of the whole. That this poſition is ſubſcribed unto by the common conſent of Nations, may be gathered from their carriages concerning and executions of Hoſtages, diverſe of which though they may be diſputable or blameable, yet they all ſerve to be founded on this generall truth, namely, that there are caſes wherein a pledge though innocent in himſelf, yet guilty by the legall contract of the violation of the ſtate upon himſelf, may be juſtly put to death. The people of Spain howſoever inclined to joyn with with the Romans againſt the Carthaginians, Tit. Livij hiſt. lib. 22. & lib. 24.yet durſt not for fear they ſhould lament the guilt of their defection in the bloud of their ſons then pledges in Hannibals cuſtody,
The Romans put to death the pledge of Tarentum for making an unlawfull eſcape out of cuſtody.
Keepers of priſons engaged to the Commonwealth that the priſoners ſhall be forth-coming to ſatisfie juſtice in caſe of the eſcape of the priſoners through their default, though the fault be in it ſelf inconſiderable, yet by reaſon of the circumſtances may juſtly be put to ſuffer the puniſhment due to ſuch an offender eſcaped, and that the Romans thought ſo may well be collected from Act. 12.19. though Herods command in that place is unjuſt.
He that is legally guilty of a capital crime, the Civil Magiſtrate may juſtly put to death; but a perſon though inherently guiltleſſe, yet extrinſecally and judicially guilty of a capitall crime, is legally guilty of a capital crime. Therefore a perſon inherently guiltleſſe and innocent, but extrinſecally and judicially guilty may be put to death.
Neither do Hiſtories afford inſtances only in publike, but alſo in perſonal caſes wherein the ſurety hath ſuffered the puniſhment of another, and by ſo ſuffering delivered the perſon ſuffered for, and that not only in inferiour grievances,Quint. Declam. 5. & 9. Idem, Declam. 6. but even in the matter of life it ſelf. Quintilian makes mention of one friend that redeemed another by vice-labour, i. e. by doing that ſervile work in his friends ſtead, which he was to have done l and in another place, of a ſon that redeemed his father by vice-handywork, that is, by doing with his own hands that work which his father was to have done.Cham. de deſecnſu. l. 5. c. 21. Greg. lib. Dial. c. 37. referente Eſtio. 1 Jo. 3.16. And Chamier reports out of others of one Paulicus Nolanus, who enſlaved himſelf unto the King of the Vandals for the redemption of a certain widows ſon, Gregory telleth us of one Sanctulus a Presbyter that offered himſelf to be beheaded for a certain Deacon that was to be put to death by the Longobards.
I dare almoſt ſay (ſaith Grotius, Caterùm ubi conſenſus, &c. Grotius de ſatisfacti-Chriſt. c. 6.a man excelling in this kinde of learning) that where there is conſent there is not any of all thoſe whom we call Pagans who would eſteem it unjuſt that one ſhould be puniſhed for the delinquency of another.
Dialogu. And this diſtinction of the ſouls caſe from the bodies caſe may ſufficiently ſerve as an anſwer to M. Reynolds who doth labour to iustifie the imputation of our ſins unto our innocent Saviour in Pſa. 110. p. 444. 445.
Anſw. This diſtinction of the caſe of the body in this life liable, and the caſe of the ſoul not liable unto puniſhment is grounded upon preſumption of that which is not, namely, ſuch an act wherein the body is guilty, and the ſoul both guiltleſſe and uncapable of guilt either inherently or imputatively.
M, Reynolds diſtinguiſheth between inherent and imputative guilt, and concludes Chriſt was guilty imputatively, that is, obnoxious unto the puniſhment that others had deſerved.
Urſin. expoſ. Catech. p. 1. qu. 13. Paraeus in Rom. cap. 5. Dub. 5. Mr Reynolds on Pſa. 110. pag. 446.The arguments whereby he proveth that Chriſt (though inherently innocent) might be guilty imputatively, and ſuffer the puniſhment that others had deſerved, they that pleaſe to examine ſhall finde ſolid and in effect much the ſame with what Ʋrſin and Paraeus had taught before.
Were there place for this diſtinction concerning any other ſubject, yet it holds not concerning Chriſt who was guilty imputatively (though not inherently and in himſelf) which hath been proved in its proper place before.