Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	body_n	soul_n	spirit_n	8,070	5	5.6914	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A60518	A letter from Mr. Richard Smith to Dr. Henry Hammond, concerning the sence of that article in the creed, He descended into hell, together with Dr. Hammond's answer.	Smith, Richard, 1566-1655.; Hammond, Henry, 1605-1660.	1684 (1684)	Wing S4154; ESTC R2952	16,798	98

come then to that Enquiry There have been three and now as by you it appears there is a fourth senses of it First That Christ in his Spirit went to the place of Souls departed Secondly That his animal Soul descended into and continued in the state of the Separation from the Body Thirdly That Hades signifies the Grave and so that descending thither is but an Explication of his Burial Fourthly That his Soul descended from Heaven into the Grave and raised the Body The first of these Opinions is subdivided again some making the place to be Hell or the place of the damned and Mr. Broughton contending against Bishop Bilson That it is Paradise and Durand interpreting the Descending only of a virtual motion and the efficacy of his Death to the Souls detained there and Calvin and our Parker from him understanding by it the torments of the damned affirm Christs descent to signifie the suffering of them especially in his Soul You demanded not of me the Reasons of not approving any of these but only my Opinion of that which you call Mr. Selden's and I have set down for the fourth And because I see no cause to approve of that it will be reasonable that I point out what I do adhere to and upon what grounds I prefer it before Mr. Selden's That which I adhere to is this That as Christ's Body after his Crucifixion and Death was disposed of in the Grave so his Soul descended to and continued in the condition or state of the Dead till the third day meaning hereby the very same thing which I suppose to be meant by the first Opinion that Christ in his Spirit went to the place of the Souls departed abstracting only from the ends which have been variously assigned by several men Ancient and Modern for his thus descending That he descended for the freeing some out of Hell hath been the Opinion of some of the Ancients as of others for the opening Heaven to those that were formerly kept out of it and of others for the triumphing over the Devil in his own Quarter and shewing openly the Victory he had gotten over Death and Hell The last of these I abstain from condemning having less prejudice to it than to either of the two former and therefore have set it down in the Practical Catechism as that which may piously be believed But I now desire I say to abstract from every of these ends and not to fix on any other end but whatshall necessarily and unquestionably arise from the Article most simply set down and herein I suppose I shall best comply with the Doctrine of our Church Article 3. defining no more than thus and abstaining from what had been express'd in the Article of Edward the Sixth That as Christ dyed for us and was buried so also it is to be believed that he went down into Hell without any Explication For supposing the word Hell in the Article to be answerable to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that word by the Origination to denote 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 invisible and that by the aequivalent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disappearing it is to me perfectly indifferent whether this be understood of a State or a Place so it be the common place of the dead or Souls departed and not any impalement of those either to Torments or Bliss Let it be taken for the common place of Souls not limited either to that on one side which we call Heaven or what we call Hell on the other or any third middle Place but indefinitely for the place of Souls i.e. of all Souls departed wheresoever they are and then it will be hardly intelligible how this differs from a State for Place properly so called it cannot be that Notion belonging to Circumscription or Definition and as Circumscription is only of Bodies so Definition which is of Souls will not be commodiously attributed to an indefinite i. e. the common place of Souls but some one place be it Heaven or Hell or a third and then taking it for a place only improperly that is all one with that which I call a State This I say because against the interpreting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the State of the Dead I see it pressed by a very learned Man of our Church that among Heathen Authors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 always signifies a Place and this evidence brought for it because they that killed themselves c. and so were dead and the Souls in the state of the Dead were yet by the Heathens believed not to be admitted into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as from their Writers is fully testified But to this I answer That making no question of the truth of the observation I think it perfectly reconcileable with my Notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a State for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quasi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being aequivalent to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not only the estate of Death but of disappearing and then the Souls of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that dye untimely being by the Heathens supposed to walk and appear and so of those whose Bodies are unburied they could not say of them that they were in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which of all others which disappeared was affirmed by them which being equally true and applicable whether to the Notion of a Place or State for I deny not that in their Opinion the Soul of one unburied was in the State of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though he were in State of Death and both of them are denoted say I by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I interpret that a State the Argument is of no force against me who mean that very same thing by the State of the Dead which they meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when they denyed the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to descend or to be admitted thither In like manner when they say that Christ by his Spirit or humane rational Soul descended to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and I that the Animal Soul thus descended I suppose those two to contain no real difference as to this matter of the Descent for I use this Phrase because it is by the Animal Soul in proper speaking that any one lives and that is common to Man with all other Animals and yet in a man this is not improperly called Spirit also as breath and life are all one mans becoming a living Soul being an immediate consequent of Gods breathing into his nostrils the breath of life Gen. 2. 7. But because there is another Notion of Spirit for the upper Immortal Soul which passeth not into the condition of Death but was by Christ committed into his Father's hands in respect of which I suppose it was that the Thief received promise to be with him that day in Paradise the Thief 's immortal Soul with Christ's immortal humane Soul and that distinguished from the living Soul as both from the Body in

the Body at least thus it cannot be in the place of the Psalmist for there it is equally attributed to God that he shall not leave his Soul in Hell and not suffer him in respect of his Body to see corruption Which must therefore unquestionably be understood First of Gods doing the whole Work in General Secondly in Gods rescuing the Soul from Hades in which he was detained and preserving the Body from corruption to which it was lyable Which is quite contrary to Mr. Selden's Interpretation which supposeth the Soul not to be at all detained there and consequently not the Patient but the Agent in the Rescue when 't is evident that God is the Agent equally in respect both of Soul and Body and the Soul as the Body the Patient and therefore the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Passive Seventhly one Argument more I shall propose to you against this Sense The Aquileian Creed is observed to have been the first in which this Article is exprest and in this there was no mention of Christs Burial the same is visible in that which we call the Athanasian Now though from hence I conclude not as some have done that it is all one with Burial for it may be Burial and somewhat more disposing of the Soul as well as the Body during the space of Separation yet sure this may I conclude That it cannot with any probability refer to the Raising him out of the Grave as Mr. Selden's phancy imports when there had no mention of His being there preceded For what tolerable Sense would there be in the words of the Aquileian Creed thus understood The words of that are Crucifixus sub Pontio Pilato descendit in Inferna which Mr. Selden may have thus interpreted Being Crucified under Pontius Pilate his Soul went into the Grave to raise his Body thence This I say were absurd without mention or intimation first given of his Body being at all there So in the Athanasian He suffered for our Salvation descended into Hell rose again the third day from the Dead where there is mention of no more but of his Suffering but neither of his Death or Burial if descending to Hades signifie them not with what propriety could it be added immediately that he went down into the Grave to raise the Body thence If these Arguments any or all prevail with you to reject this Interpretation I need add no more if they do not I shall then recommend one thing more to your consideration That some Opinions are so remote and improbable that it is hard to produce any Argument to make them more so than of themselves they are and this is fit to be in front of such That of Ramus that Burying doth not signifie Burying but Embalming that so descending to Hades may be left to signifie Burial being though not more true methinks more ingenious and probable than this and yet against this it will be hard to produce above one Argument and that with him a begging the Question which among Logicians goes for the most fallacious way of Disputing viz that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among all Authors Sacred and Prophane signifies Burial not Embalming Having said thus much to the Main I shall now review your Letter and give it what reflexions seem yet to be needful And First When you think it is an inconvenience that the Opinion contrary to Mr. Selden's is prest with to acknowledge in the Text Psalm 16. 10. That Christ was left in Hell the place of the Damned though for no long time you now see First that Hell signifying not definitely the place of the Damned any more than definitely Heaven the place of the Glorified but indefinitely the common Place Habitation Condition of the Dead Christ being there some time and the third day recalled thence is not his being left in Hades but the quite contrary to it his being rescued thence timely which yet he could not properly be if he were not there for some time The Phrase which from the Psalm the Apostle useth Acts 2. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou shalt not so leave as to forsake destitute But then Secondly It is most certain that Christs Divinity was inseparably united both to the Soul and Body of Christ and so according to your hearts desire though Christs Soul were as my Opinion holds in Hades State or place of the Dead for some space yet God left it not forsook it not there one minute Next when you say There is a considerable use of this Opinion the manifesting the Re-union of Christ's Body and Soul in the Grave with the time and manner thereof at or immediately before his Resurrection which you say is in no other Article nor in any plain place of Scripture averred To this I Answer First That as a supposed incommodity doth not solve so a conceived advantage doth not competently found an Argument Secondly That your own confession That there is no plain place of Scripture that averrs this is a valid Argument of probation that it ought not to be esteemed any part of our Faith nor consequently any Article of our Creed Thirdly That when in the Creed whatsoever may be said of the Scripture the Separation of his Body and Soul together with the time and manner of it is no otherwise set down than by his being affirmed to be dead so is there no kind of need that the Re-union should be more particularly set down than by teaching us that the third day he rose again it being certain that he is the whole Christ that dyed and so both Soul and Body and so the affirming that he rose again is perfectly aequivalent and tantamount to his Soul being re-united to his Body Then for the time that is also mentioned in that Article the third day as for the manner this Interpretation sets not that down truly as was said For the Resurrection of the Body was the work of his Divinity and not peculiarly of his Animal or Human Soul but as of the Instrument used by his Divinity Next when you propose an Objection in behalf of the Opinion of the Descent into the place of the Damned and give answer to it I shall thus far interpose First that the Authority of the Antient Church in a matter of this moment depending on what was delivered by the Apostles to the Churches is and ought to be of great weight against all novel Heterodoxes so far as those of the Antient Church agree among themselves Now though as to the end of Christs descending and to the Definition of the Place the Antients consent not but differ very much from one another which is shewed at large by Mr. Pearson and therefore in these particulars our Church defines not yet there is nothing they more uniformly agree in than that the Soul of Christ really descended into the habitation of Souls for which I likewise for brevity sake referr you to Mr. Pearson page 479. And therefore thus