so much be made mention of with reference to his body, as to his
soul, if to his body at all. For what pain of death was his body
capable of, when his soul was separate from it? (Acts 2:24) And
yet God's loosing the pains of death, seems to be but an immediate
antecedent to his rising from the dead. And this sense Peter doth
indeed seem to pursue, saying, "For David speaketh concerning him;
I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right
hand, that I should not be moved. Therefore did my heart rejoice,
and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope,
because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou
suffer thine holy one to see corruption" (Acts 2:25-27). This,
saith Peter, was not spoken of David, but he being a prophet,
and knowing that God had sworn with an oath, that of the fruit of
his loins according to the flesh he would raise up Christ to sit
on his throne (verse 29,30): He seeing this before, spake of the
resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither
did his flesh see corruption (verse 31). "Thou wilt not leave my
soul in hell"; his soul was not left in hell. Of what use are these
expressions, if the soul of Christ suffered not, if it suffered
not when separated from the body? for of that time the Apostle
Peter seems to treat. Besides, if it be not improper to say, that
soul was not left there, that never was there, I am at a loss. Thou
wilt not leave, his soul was not left there; ergo, It was there,
seems to be the natural conclusion. If it be objected, that by
hell is meant the grave, 'tis foolish to think that the soul of
Christ lay there while his body lay dead therein. But again, the
Apostle seems clearly to distinguish between the places where the
soul and body of Christ was; counting his body to be in the grave,
and his soul, for the time, in hell. If there be objected what
was said by him to the thief upon the cross (Luke 23:43), I can