CHAPTER - fta1 Edersheim (Life of Jesus, 2-789) asserts that the schools of Shammai and Hillel both taught the doctrine of eternal punishment. “These schools represented the theological teaching in the time of Christ and his Apostles, showing that the doctrine of eternal punishment was held in the days of our Lord, however it may have been afterwards modified.” Edersheim adds, that “the doctrine of the eternity of punishment seems to have been held by the Synagogue throughout the whole first century. In the second century, there is a decided difference in Rabbinic opinion; some denying the doctrine of endless retribution.

In the third century, there is a reaction and a return to former views.” fta2 “The meaning of the Hebrew word Sheol is doubtful, but I have not hesitated to translate it hell. I do not find fault with those who translate grave, but it is certain that the prophet means something more than common death; otherwise he would say nothing else concerning the wicked, than what would also happen to all the faithful in common with them” (Calvin on Psalm 9:17). fta3 St. Peter ( Acts 2:31) asserts that “David spake of the resurrection of Christ,” when he said that “his soul was not left in sheol, neither did his flesh see corruption.” But there is no resurrection of the soul.

Consequently, it is the body that David “spake of.” To “leave Christ’s soul in sheol,” is the same thing as to “let his flesh see corruption” — evincing, that “soul,” here, is put for “body,” and “sheol” means the “grave.” St. Paul ( Acts 13:35) omits the clause, “Thou wilt not leave my soul in Sheol,” evidently regarding the clause, “Thou wilt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption,” as stating the whole fact in the case.

In support of this interpretation of these words, we avail ourselves of the unquestioned learning and accuracy of Bishop Pearson. After remarking that the explanation which makes the clause, “He descended into hell,” to mean “that Christ in his body was laid in the grave,” is “ordinarily rejected by denying that ‘soul’ is ever taken for ‘ body,’ or ‘hell’ for the ‘grave,’“ he proceeds to say that “this denial is in vain: for it must be acknowledged, that sometimes the Scriptures are rightly so, and cannot otherwise be, understood. First, the same word in the Hebrew, which the Psalmist used, and in the Greek, which the Apostle used, and. we translate ‘the soul,’ is elsewhere used for the body of a dead man, and rendered so in the English version. Both vp,n< and yuch< are used for the body of a dead man in the Hebrew, and Septuagint of Numbers 6:6: ‘He shall come at no dead body’ ( tme vP,n< ). The same usage is found in Leviticus 5:2; 19:28; <032101> 21:1-11; 22:4; Numbers 18:11-13; Haggai 2:13. Thus, several times, vp,n< and yuch< are taken for the body of a dead man; that body which polluted a man under the Law, by the touch thereof. And Maimondes hath observed, that there is no pollution from the body till the soul be departed. Therefore vp,n< and yuch< did signify the body after the separation of the soul. And this was anciently observed by St.

Augustine, that the soul may be taken for the body only: ‘Animee nomine corpus solum posse significari, modo quodam locutionis ostenditur, quo significatur per id quod continetur illud quod continet’ (Epist. 157, al.190 ad Optatum; De animarum origine, c. 5, 19).

Secondly, the Hebrew word lwOav] which the Psalmist used, and the Greek word a[dhv which the Apostle employed, and is translated ‘hell’ in the English version, doth cemainly in some other places signify no more than the ‘grave,’ and is translated so. As when Mr. Ainsworth followeth the word, ‘For I will go down unto my son, mourning, to hell;’ our translation, arriving at the sense, rendereth it, ‘For I will go down into the grave, unto my son, mourning’ ( Genesis 37:35). So again he renders, ‘Ye shall bring down my gray hairs with sorrow unto hell,’ that is ‘to the grave’ ( Genesis 42:38). And in this sense we say,’ The Lord killeth and maketh alive’ he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up’ ( 1 Samuel 2:6). It is observed by Jewish commentators that those Christians are mistaken who interpret those words spoken by Jacob, ‘I will go down into Sheol,’ of hell [in the sense of underworld]; declaring that Sheol there is nothing but the grave.” (Pearson, On the Creed, Article V.) The position that ( vp,n< ) is sometimes put for a dead body, and that Sheol in such a connection denotes the grave, was also taken by Usher (as it had been by Beza, on Acts 2:27, before him), and is supported with his remarkable philological and patristic learning. See his discussion of the Limbus Patrum and Christ’s Descent into Hell, in his Answer to a Challenge of a Jesuit in Ireland (Works, Vol. III.).

This metonymy of “soul” for “body” is as natural an idiom in English, as it is in Hebrew and Greek. It is more easy for one to say that “the ship sank with a hundred souls,” than to say that it “sank with a hundred bodies.” And yet the latter is the real fact in the case.

It is objected that Sheol does not mean the “grave,” because there is a word ( rb,q, ) for grave. A grave is bought and sold, and the plural is used; but Sheol is never bought and sold, or used in the plural. The reply is, that “grave” has an abstract and general sense, denoted by lwOav] , and a concrete and particular, denoted by rb,q< . All men go to the grave; but not all men have a grave. When our Lord says that “all that are in their graves (mnhmei>oiv ) shall come forth” ( John 5:28), he does not mean that only those shall be raised who have been laid in a particular grave with funeral obsequies. A man is “ in the grave,” in the general sense, when his soul is separated from his body and his body has “returned to the dust” ( Genesis 3:19). To be “in the grave,” in the abstract sense, is to have the elements of the body mingled with those of the earth from which it was taken ( Ecclesiastes 12:7). The particular spot where the mingling occurs is unessential. Moses is in the grave; but “no man knoweth of his sepulcher unto this day.” We say of one drowned in the ocean, that he found a watery grave. These remarks apply also to the use of a[dhv and mnhmei~on . According to Pearson (ut supra) the Jerusalem Targum, with that of Jonathan, and the Persian Targum, explains lwOav] , in Genesis 37:35; 42:38, by rb,q, . fta4 It is often difficult to say positively, and without qualification, what the opinion of a church father really was upon the subject of Hades, owing to the unsettled state of opinion. One and the same writer, like Tertullian, or Augustine, for example, makes different statements at different times. This accounts for the conflicting representations of dogmatic historians. One thing, however, is certain, that the nearer we approach the days of the Apostles, the less do we hear about an underworld, and of Christ’s desceny into it. Little is said concerning Hades, by the Apostolical fathers. In the longer recension of Ignatius ad Smyrnaeos (Ch. 9), they are exhorted to “repent while yet there is opportunity, for in Hades no one can confess his sins.” Justin Martyr (Trypho, Ch. 5) simply says that “the souls of the pious remain in a better place, while those of the wicked are in a worse, waiting for the time of judgment.” The extracts from the fathers in Huidekoper’s volume on Christ’s Mission to the Underworld, show the uncertainty that prevailed. The same is true of those in Konig’s Christi Hollenfahrt, notwithstanding the bias of the author. fta5 On the influence of Hellenism upon the Later-Judaism, see Edersheim’s Messianic Prophecy and History. Lecture 9. fta6 See Hagenbach’s History of Doctrine, sections 77, 78, 141, 142.

Smith’s Ed fta7 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.” fta8 Baumgarten-Crusius (Dogmengeschichte 2:109) 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. fta9 Augustine, Bede, Aquinas, Erasmus, Beza, Gerhard, Hottringer, Clericus, Leighton, Pearson, Secker, Hammond, Hofmann, and most of the Reformed theologians, explain 1 Peter 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 particle po>te , qualifying ajpeiqh>sasi> , shows that the disobedience (or disbelief) occurred “when the ark was apreparing.”

But the preaching must have been contemporaneous with the disobedience, or disbelief. What else was there to disobey, or disbelieve? Says Pearson (Creed, Art. 2), “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 Peter 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 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 pneu>mati , alone. The total qea>nqrwpov did not preach. The sa>rx 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 Concordira (9:2) so understands and teaches: “Credimus quod tota persona, deus et homo, post sepulturam, ad inferos descenderit, Satanam deviceterit,” etc.

Christ’s preaching through Noah, “a preacher of righteousness” ( Peter 2:5), and therefore an “ambassador of Christ” ( 2 Corinthians 5:20), might be done through his divinity alone. Christ preached pneu>mati through Noah, as David ejn pneu>mati called him Lord ( Matthew 22:43). The objection that actually living men upon earth would not be called “spirits” is met by Romans 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 Peter 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.

Evodium 6:21). In Ephesians 4:9, ta< katw>tera me>rh th~v gh~v to which Christ “descended” from “on high” signify 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 Isaiah 44:23: “Shout ye lower parts of the earth.” This is the opposite of the “heavens,” which are bidden to “sing.” In Acts 2:19, this world is called h\gh~ ka>tw . Hades would be ta< katw>tata me>rh th~v gh~v . In Romans 10:7, Christ’s descent “into the deep” (a]busson ) is shown by the context to be his descent into the grave.

Whatever be the interpretation of 1 Peter 3:18-20, such a remarkable doctrine as the Descent to Hades should have more foundation than a single disputed text. The doctrine itself is so obscure that it has had five different forms of statement. 1. Christ virtually descended into Hades, because his death was efficacious upon the souls there. 2.

Christ actually descended into Hades. 3. Christ’s descent into Hades was his suffering the torments of hell. 4. Christ’s descent into Hades was his burial in the grave. 5. Christ’s descent into Hades was his remaining in the state of the dead, for a season. The Westminster Larger Catechism (50) combines the last two: “Christ’s humiliation after his death consisted in his being buried, and continuing in the state of the dead, and under the power of death, till the third day, which hath been otherwise expressed in these words, ‘ He descended into hell.’“ fta10 It is relative, not absolute eternity; eternity a parte post, not a parte ante. The future aeon, or age, has a beginning, but no ending. This is the meaning, when in common phrase it is said that “a man has gone into eternity”; and that his happiness, or misery, is “eternal.” The absolutely eternal has no beginning, as well as no ending; it is the eternity of God. The relatively eternal has a beginning but no end; it is the immortality of man and angel. The schoolman called the former, eternitas; the latter, sempiternitas. Scripture designates the absolute eternity of God, by the phrase, “from everlasting to everlasting” ( Psalm 90:2). The punishment of the wicked is more properly endless, than eternal. fta11 “ Aijw>n de quocunque temporis spatio ita dicitur, ut, quale, sit, judicari debeat in singulus locis ex orationis serie et mente scriptoris, rebus adeo et personis, de quibus sermo est.” Schleusner, in voce. fta12 Compare the Author’s Sermons to the Natural Man. Sermon 18. fta13 The merit of Muler, in particular, in respect to a profound and true view of sin is very great. No theological treatise of this century has more value than his work on Sin. fta14 The passage, “In every nation, he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted with him” ( Acts 10:35), is often explained as teaching that there are in every nation some who live virtuous and exemplary lives, and upon this ground obtain the rewards and blessedness of the future. This would be salvation by works, which is impossible, according to St. Paul. It is with reference to such an interpretation of this text, that the Westminster Confession (10. 4) asserts, that “men not professing the Christian religion cannot be saved in any other way whatever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the law of that religion which they do profess.” In the passage above cited, the phrase “fearer of God,” and “worker of righteousness,” is employed technically, by St.

Peter, to denote a man inquiring after the way of salvation — somewhat as it was among the Jews, to signify a proselyte of the gate (Guericke’s Church History, p. 29). This is evident from the fact, that to this “devout” Cornelius who “feared God with all his house” ( Acts 10:2), the Apostle preached Christ as the Savior of sinners, “through whose name, whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins,” and that Cornelius believed, and was baptized ( Acts 10:36-48). He would not have done this, if he had expected that his “fearing God” and “working righteousness “ — in other words, his morality and virtue — would save him.

CHAPTER - ftb1 Beccaria and Bentham are the principal modern advocates of the contrary theory, viz.: that punishment is founded on utility and expediency. Beccaria’s position is, that the standard of crime is the injury which it does to society. He refers exclusively to the public good, and never appeals to the moral sentiment (Penny Cyclopaedia, Art. Beccaria). Bentham takes the same view, connecting it with the utilitaran ethics. From these writers, this theory has passed considerably into modern jurisprudence. Austin, a popular writer on law, follows Bentham.

The theory which founds morality upon righteousness, and punishment upon justice, is historical. Plato (Laws,10. 904-905.) held that punishment is righteous and retributive. Cicero (De Legibus, 1. 14.sq.) contends that true virtue has regard to essential justice, not to utility. Grotius defines penalty as “the evil of suffering which is inflicted on account of the evil of doing.” The great English jurists, Coke, Bacon, Selden, and Blackstone, explain punishment by crime, not by expediency. Kant, Herbart, Stahl, Hartenstein, Rothe, and Woolsey, define punishment as requital for the satisfaction of law and justice (Woolsey’s Political Science, Pt. 2. Ch. 8). ftb2 Hence, those who found punishment upon utility, and deny that it is retributive, endeavor to abolish capital punishment. And if their theory of penalty is true, they are right in their endeavor. ftb3 It must be remembered, that it is the degree, together with the endlessness of suffering, that constitutes the justice of it. We can conceive of an endless suffering that is marked by little intensity in the degree of it. Such, according to Augustine, is the suffering of unbaptized infants (mitissima omnium). It is negative banishment, not positive infliction. An evil that is inflicted in a few hours may be greater than one inflicted in endless time. One day of such torment as that of Satan would be a greater distress, than a slight physical pain lasting forever. The infinite incarnate God suffered more agony in Gethsemane, than the whole finite human race could suffer in endless duration. Consequently, the uniformity in the endlessness must be combined with a variety in the intensity of suffering, in order to adjust the future punishment to the different grades of sin. ftb4 “Human laws,” says Paley (Moral Philosophy, Bk.1.Ch. 3), “omit many duties, such as piety to God, bounty to the poor, forgiveness of injuries, education of children, gratitude to benefactors. And they permit, or, which is the same thing, suffer to go unpunished, many crimes, such as luxury, prodigality, caprice in the disposition of property by will, disrespect to parents, and a multitude of similar examples.” ftb5 “If,” says Pearson (Creed, Art. 5), “we should imagine, any damned soul to have received an express promise of God, that after ten thousand years he would release him from those torments and make him everlastingly happy, and to have a true faith in that promise and a firm hope of receiving eternal life, we could not say that that man was in the same condition with the rest of the damned, or that he felt all that hell which they were sensible of, or all that pain which was due unto his sins; because hope, and confidence, and relying upon God, would not only mitigate all other pains, but wholly take away the bitter anguish of despair.” It is obvious, that if God makes any such promise in his word, either expressly, or by implication, despair is not only impossible to the believer of Scripture, but is a sin. No man should despair. And if God does not make any such promise, but man makes ill to his fellow sinner, in saying, as Satan did to Eve, “Thou shalt not surely die,” and the human promise is believed, the effect will be the same. There will be no despair, until the reckless human falsehood is corrected by the awful demonstration at death. ftb6 The words of Paul, in 1 Corinthians 13:13, are sometimes cited to prove the eternity of hope, because it “abides.” But in this passage, “faith, hope, and charity” are contrasted with the supernatural charismata of chapter 12. These latter are transitory, but the former “abide,” because they essential to the Christian life here upon earth.