We have now only to apply to adns the general remark, that, when a word stands for any thing which is compounded, it may, in particular circumstances, stand for either component part.-The true sense of adŋs seems to be the habitation of man after death; the habitation of a Body after death is the Grave; the habitation of a Soul after death has unfortunately no name in our Language; and that must cause the more words to be used in explanation; but I think, that what I laid down is now intelligible, that Yux eis adov may either mean,

the

14. in the expression God "will raise up us," must denote the Body, (the soul is re-united not raised); and Virgil has the phrase animam sepulchro condere, (see Ormerod's Remarks on Priestley, p. 13.) yet mens cujusque is est quisque.

The fact is, ux sometimes is understood to signify Body (Lev. xxi. i, 11. Numb. v. 2.-vi. 6.)—sometimes Soul. In like manner aons sometimes signifies, or is taken to signify, the Grave (as will appear by and by), sometimes the receptacle of departed Spirits:-accounting for this fact is another business every one must use his own solution. My conjecture is this: in every language, when a thing consists of two parts, especially if it be not well understood, that word, which expresses the whole, may come to express either part; as that part happens to be principally noticed. Thus, Man may mean either body or soul, as in a dead man, a wise man,' or 'man is immortal? Also, the word, which expresses either part, may stand for the whole; and, as signifying the whole, may, as before, denote either part:-as in, not a soul, somebody, nobody.' Thus Vuxn denotes first the Soul, then the Man, (Gen. xlvi. passim.) then the Man in that state, in which his soul is not noticed; and so may be said to signify Body. The same reasoning applies to aons; only that is, I think, primarily the place of the dead man; after he disappears on earth.

6

f There is a difference, which seems neglected, between not having a word, in a modern language, answering to adŋs, and not having a word, expressing the receptacle of departed Souls.A word answering exactly and properly to aons would express the habitation of Man after Death, and so include the receptacle of Bodies as well as of Souls.- -Lord King reckons äons to mean the receptacle of departed Souls; scarce correctly, in my opinion.

the Body in the Grave, or the Soul in the place of departed Souls, or both: that is, the Man in the state of men after Death".

4. Nothing farther seems to be wanting in the way of Explanation; therefore I will go on to the Proof. We have here, according to this explanation, only one proposition to prove.- The Soul of Christ went into the ordinary receptacle of departed human Souls.'-Now, though the Scripture were silent on this head, this might be presumed, in the same manner as that Christ was of the substance of his Mother: except indeed it appeared, that Christ was to put off human nature when he gave up the Ghost. But, as the contrary appears, as to his state after his resurrection, either our proposition must be true, or Christ must have ceased to be man on his death, and have again become Man upon his Resurrection; which is a supposition not to be admitted without particular proof; and therefore our proposition is true.

But now let us examine Acts ii. 24-31. and see, whether it does not prove what we want to demonstrate. Ver. 25. is not only "concerning" Christ, but is spoken in his Person. Ver. 27. is part concerning what we call the Soul, and part about the Body: which appears plainly enough from the verse itself, though the expression for the Body, "thine holy one," is the title of the whole man; but indisputably, in my opinion, from the resuming of the subject in ver. 31. where the word flesh is used. The words "soul in hell,” vxn eis adov, cannot here (for the same reason as in our Article) have any meaning as to the Body of Christ, or the

a With regard to Body or Soul being self, Epictetus might be read, concerning Socrates. 1. 29. 3. with Mrs. Carter's Note. See Carter's Epictetus, p. 86.

b Art. ii. Sect. 26.

the Grave. This appears, in some measure, from Yux being translated Soul and anima in the 16th Psalm. Why is it not translated Body, or the dead, as in other places, but that the sense requires soul? St. Paul, in Acts xiii. 34-37. speaking only of the resurrection, omits that part of the Prophecy, which relates to the Soul; and mentions only what is liable to Corruption.

5. Voltaire says, "en effet, ni les Evangiles, ni les actes des Apôtres ne disent que Jesus descendit dans l'enfer." I think we have shewn, that the Acts of the Apostles do say, that' Christ descended into Hell, or what is equivalent to saying so. It is not indeed in the way of direct narration, but by an authoritative interpretation or application of a Prophecy. And it must be owned, that the Evangelists do not relate this descent; not even St. Luke, the Author of the Acts of the Apostles: it is not likely it should be related in the Epistles.— But yet I apprehend, we have sufficient foundation to build our doctrine upon.-The Descent into Hell is an event, of which the Evangelists could not possibly be witnesses; and therefore, that they do not relate it, is rather a proof of their general veracity, than of the falsehood of our opinion: -we value their testimony, because they speak d what they have known. And they have the greater right to our esteem, if (when it can be) they forbear to speak what they have not known.-Indeed, the miraculous conception is an event, which the sacred Historians could know only by immediate Revelation; but it is one, on which so much depends, that we cannot conceive how they could have been left ignorant of it. With regard to the Descent into Hell, it seems to me more satisfactory

c Vol. XXIV. quarto, p. 430.

d John iii. 11. xv. 27. xix. 35. Luke i. 2.

to

to be informed of it by an application of a prophecy, than by a Relation of such a fact.

6. After the proof comes the Application.And first, we are to consider, in what sense a thinking man can now give his assent to the Article under consideration. The principal nicety is this; may a person subscribe to the assertion, that Christ went down into Hell, who only believes, that his soul went into the receptacle of departed Spirits?—I apprehend he may, for the following reasons.

1. Any sense, which is agreed upon between the Person who makes and the person who receives the declaration, may be considered as a right sense.And those, who may be looked upon as receiving a declaration in our present case, are the generality of learned and judicious men in our Church: what they agree upon may be looked upon as the sense of the Church, and the Church may be considered as receiving a meaning, which is offered to them, and accepted, though tacitly. Now, since Bishop Pearson's exposition of the Descent into Hell, all other eminent writers have agreed with him, and adopted his opinion, which, I think, agrees with ours.-Whitby does this;-and Dr. S. Clarke ;— and Bishop Burnet.

2. Supposing our construction of going down into Hell was not known to the compilers of our Articles, yet they are not to be supposed to have made Articles so as to preclude improvements; or new solutions of difficulties.-3. It being evidently the intention of our Church to translate adns, and there being no word in English, French, or Dutch", answering to it, the subscriber must have a greater liberty in translating it for himself. At present, for

a Book iii. Chap. vii. Sect. 3, 4. Powell, p. 35. b Sermons, vol. V. 8vo. Serm. 14.

Book iii. Chap. ix. Sect. 11.

want

Lord King, Chap. iv.

want of such a word in English, our translation appears unsteady; sometimes the word grave is put for it, sometimes the word Hell.-4. But, though there is this variety, our sense of adŋs will make the passages, in which it is differently translated, perfectly consistent. In 1 Cor. xv. 55. it is Grave in the text, and Hell in the margin; "O grave, where is thy victory?"-In Matt. xvi. 18. we have "the Gates of Hell shall not prevail," &c. Whereas in Isaiah xxxviii. 10. the same words are translated the gates of the Grave. In Psalm lxxxix. 48. we have the word grave in our Bible, and the word Hell in our Book of Common Prayer. "Shall he deliver his Soul (vxv) from the hand of the Grave?"-We may also compare Prov. xxx. 16. where one of four things never satisfied is "the Grave," with Prov. xxvii. 20. " Hell and destruction are never full." Luke xvi. 23. mentions inhabitants of adns, who are good and bad;-Abraham who was happy, and the rich man who was tormented; though a xáoua was between them. And Rev. xx. 13, 14. when "death and Hell" (or the Grave, in the margin) had " delivered delivered up the dead which were in them," still these dead were to be judged, every man according to their works."— "Aons therefore does not imply the goodness or badness of its inhabitants; nor can it in our sense, as 'the habitation of man' after death.'-It seems to comprehend

e

To find these two passages in the LXX, look first between Chap. xxiv. and xxv; and then, after Chap. xxv. Prov. xxx. 16. in Mill's Sept. 12mo, appears p. 198; and Prov. xxvii. 20, appears page 203.

f Parkhurst published his Greek Lexicon in 1769, and his Hebrew one in 1778; if one compares his 4th sense of vuxn and his first sense of adns, with his sixth sense of and his sixth sense of, it looks as if he had changed his opinion in the nine intermediate years: and thought Ps. xvi. 10, and Acts ii. 27. related more to the Soul, at last, than he had done before.