Part 40

[3.] There is another opinion which is subversive of the doctrine contained in this answer; namely, that the soul, at its separation from the body, sleeps till the resurrection; and consequently, in that intermediate space of time in which it is separate, it is no more capable of happiness or misery than the body that lies in the grave. The absurdity of these opinions we shall take occasion farther to consider. And,

[1.] That of the Papists concerning a middle-state, into which they suppose, souls enter at death, in order to their being cleansed from the remainders of sin, whereby they are made meet for heaven. This doctrine, how ludicrous and ungrounded soever it may appear to be, they are so fond of, that it will be as hard a matter to convince them of the absurdity thereof, as it was of old to convince the worshippers of Diana at Ephesus, of their stupid idolatry; because it tends to promote their secular interest. They first endeavour to persuade the poor deluded people, that they must suffer very great torments after death, unless they be relieved by the prayers of their surviving friends; and then, to induce them to shew this favour to them, as well as that they may merit some abatement of these torments or a speedy release from them, they tell them, that it is their duty and interest to leave their estates, by their last will and testament to pious uses; such as building of churches, endowing of monasteries, &c. by which means they have got a great part of the estates of the people into their own hands. And to carry on this cheat, they give particular instances, in some of their writings, of souls being released from this dreadful place by their prayers.

The account they give of this middle-state, between heaven and hell, is not only that they are not admitted into the immediate presence of God; but are exposed to grievous torments by fire, little short of those that are endured in hell; and if they are not helped by the prayers of the church, they are in danger of being sent from thence directly to hell, from whence there is no release. They also add, that the punishment, in this state, is either longer or shorter, in proportion to the crimes committed in this world; for which satisfaction has not been made by penances endured, or money given to compensate for them. Some, indeed, are allowed, by them, to pass immediately into heaven, without being detained here; namely, those who have performed works of supererogation; or if by their entering into a vow of poverty, they have parted with their estates, while living in the world, for the use of the church, in which case no end could be answered, by telling them of this fable of purgatory. Others are told that they may escape it, by entering into a vow of chastity and canonical obedience; which belongs more especially to the priests, when entering into holy orders; whereby they take care to make provision for themselves, that so the deluded people may have a greater regard to their prayers, since they will find none in purgatory to perform that service for them. This is so vile and absurd an opinion, that it cannot but expose the church of Rome to the scorn and contempt of all who are not given up to strong delusions.

But though it sufficiently appears, that secular interest is the main foundation of this doctrine; yet there are some arguments, which they take from scripture, to support it; which is the only thing that requires our notice.

One scripture brought to this purpose, is in Isa. iv. 4. where the prophet speaks concerning the _Lord’s purging the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning_; supposing that this should have its accomplishment when the soul left the body, and was detained in this place of torment. But this is very remote from the design of the Holy Ghost herein; for it only contains a metaphorical description of some judgments which God would inflict on people in this life, and as a means to reclaim them from them: therefore we often read, in the prophets, of God’s refining his people _in the furnace of affliction_, Isa. xlviii. 10. and accordingly it is said, that _the Lord’s fire is in Zion, and his furnace in Jerusalem_, chap. xxxi. 9. denoting the sore judgments they should undergo in this world, as a punishment for their idolatry.

Another scripture, which is miserably perverted, to support this doctrine, is that in Zech. ix. 11. _By the blood of thy covenant have I sent forth thy prisoners, out of the pit wherein is no water_; which they suppose, is to be understood of some state after this life; because it is called _the pit_; and it is also described as a place of misery, inasmuch as there is no water, that is, no refreshing comforts; and they add, that the prophet does not speak of hell because some persons are described as _sent forth_, or released from it; therefore it must needs be understood of this middle-state, between heaven and hell. But this is far from being the sense of the text, since it contains a prediction of their being delivered from the Babylonish captivity, which, in a metaphorical way of speaking, is called _the pit, wherein is no water_, to denote the great distress that the people were to be brought under therein; thus the prophet Isaiah, speaking of their deliverance from the captivity, says, _The captive exile hasteneth that he may be loosed, and that he should not die in the pit_, Isa. li. 14. Or else it denotes some future deliverance, which the church was to expect after great calamities undergone by them; and this is said to be _by the blood of the covenant_, denoting that all the happiness the church shall enjoy in this world, as well as the other is founded in the blood of Christ, pursuant to the covenant of grace: and if the text must necessarily be understood of a deliverance from evil after death, it may be considered as a prediction of our being delivered from eternal destruction, by the blood of Jesus.

Again, another scripture which they bring to support this fabulous doctrine, is in 1 Cor. iii. 13, 14, 15. _Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work, of what sort it is, If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burnt, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire_. The reason why this scripture is forced into that cause which they maintain, is, because we read of persons being _saved so as by fire_; and this they suppose to respect that which should follow after the particular judgment of every one at death in which, a scrutiny shall be made concerning their works, or their behaviour in this world; and if they are found faulty, they may, notwithstanding, be saved after they have endured those sufferings which are there allotted for them.

But there is nothing in the text that gives the least countenance to this notion, since the apostle seems to be speaking concerning those ministers who preach false doctrines, that is, propagate errors not directly subversive of the fundamental articles of faith, but such as tend to embarrass the consciences of men, and, in many respects, lead them out of the way; or of others, who have been perverted by them, and have embraced pernicious errors, which, in their consequences, are subversive of the faith, but yet do not hold those consequences: these may be saved, but their salvation shall be attended with some difficulty, arising from the mistaken notions which they have imbibed. Some compare this to a person whose house is in flames, and he saves his life with difficulty, being scorched thereby. God will, in his own time, take some method to discover what notions we have received in religion; and he is said to do it by fire. Whether this, as a learned writer observes, is to be understood of the clear gospel-dispensation,[145] or else respects some trying dispensation of providence, accompanied with a greater measure of the effusion of the Spirit, that shall lead men into the knowledge of their mistakes, and set them in the right way, I will not determine. But whether the one or the other of these senses of the texts seems most agreeable to the mind of the apostle, it is sufficiently evident that no countenance is given, either in this or any other scripture, to this absurd doctrine of the Papists.

Another scripture which they bring for the proof of this doctrine, is in 1 Pet. iii. 19. in which it is said, that our Saviour _went and preached unto the spirits in prison_. The sense they give of that text, compared with the foregoing verse, is, that as our Saviour, after his death, visited those repositories, where the Old Testament-saints were lodged, and preached the gospel to them, which they embraced; and pursuant hereupon, were admitted into heaven: so he went down into this subterraneous prison, and preached to them also; but whether this was attended with the same success, or no, they pretend not to determine; but only allege this as a proof that there is such a place: and to give countenance to this sense they say, that by the prison here spoken of, the prison of hell cannot be intended; inasmuch as there is no hope of salvation there, and consequently no preaching of the gospel. And it cannot be meant of his preaching to any in this world; for they suppose, that he went after he left the world, and _preached to spirits_, that is, to persons, whose souls were separate from their bodies; therefore he went, as they argue, and preached to those that are in purgatory: but in giving this sense of the text, they are obliged to take no notice of what follows, which, if duly considered, would plainly overthrow it.

The meaning of this scripture therefore is this, that our Saviour preached by his Spirit, to the old world, in the ministry of Noah, while he was preparing the ark; but they being disobedient, were not only destroyed by the flood, but shut up in the prison of hell; in which respect it is said he preached to those that are now in prison: so that this scripture makes nothing for that doctrine which we are opposing; nor any other that is or can be brought; so that all the arguments pretended to be taken from it, are a manifest perversion thereof.

However, there is one method of reasoning which they make use of, that I cannot pass over; inasmuch as they apprehend that it contains a _dilemma_ that is unanswerable; namely, that there is some place in which persons are perfectly freed from sin, which must be either this world, or heaven, or some middle state between them both. It is allowed by all, that there is no perfect freedom from sin in this world; and to suppose that persons are perfectly freed from sin after they come to heaven, is to conclude that that is a state of probation, in which the gospel must be preached, and persons that attend upon it, inclined to embrace it, which is not agreeable to a state of perfection: and this is contrary to scripture, which speaks of no unclean thing entering therein. Therefore it follows, that the state in which they are fitted for it, must be this which they plead for, to wit, a middle-state, in which they are first purged, and then received into heaven.

But to this it may be replied, that it is true, believers are not perfectly freed from sin in this world, nor do they enter into heaven, either with the guilt or pollution of their sins upon them; but they are made perfect in an instant, in passing out of this world into heaven: the same stroke which separates the soul from the body takes away the remainders of corruption, and fits it for the heavenly state; it passes out of this world perfect, though it was imperfect while in it; in like manner as the body being raised out of the grave is rendered incorruptible thereby, so that we have no occasion to invent a middle state, into which the saints are brought. Therefore it follows, as it is expressed in this answer, that the souls of believers, immediately after death, are made perfect in holiness.

[2.] There is another opinion embraced by some of the Jews, and several of the Fathers, in which they are followed by some modern writers; namely, that the souls of believers, at death, enter into paradise, where they continue till they are reunited to their bodies, and, after the day of judgment, are received into the highest heaven: thus they understand our Saviour’s words to the penitent thief on the cross, _To day thou shalt be with me in paradise_, in a literal sense, as contra-distinguished from heaven. And these assert, that the soul of our Saviour, when separate from his body, went immediately into paradise, and not into heaven, till after his resurrection. This is supposed to import the same thing as _Abraham’s bosom_ does in the parable; and indeed, the Greek word,[146] in the metaphorical sense thereof, which we translate _bosom_, signifies a port or haven; which is, as it were, a bosom for shipping.

This is described as very distinct from the Popish doctrine of purgatory; for it is not a place of suffering, but of delight and pleasure. Tertullian, who gave into this notion,[147] describes it as a place of divine pleasure, designed for the reception of the spirits of holy men, being separate either from the world, or other places near it, by an inclosure of fire, designed to keep the wicked out.

This is what they suppose the apostle Paul speaks of when he says, that he was _caught up into paradise_, 2 Cor. xii. 5. and they conclude that this vision or rapture which he mentions, includes in it what he experienced at two several times; and that this is agreeable to what he mentions in verse 1. where he speaks not of one single vision, but of _visions_ and _revelations_. Accordingly they suppose that he had first of all a vision of the glory of heaven, and then he had another of paradise: thus a late writer understands the text.[148] However, I cannot think that this can be sufficiently inferred from the apostle’s words, which are, as it were, a preface to introduce the account which he gives of himself, when he says, _I will come to visions and revelations_; that is, I will now tell you how God sometimes favours his people with extraordinary visions and revelations: then he proceeds to give an instance hereof in himself, as being _caught up into the third heaven_, or into paradise; for I cannot suppose that he speaks of two visions, or distinguishes paradise from heaven; and therefore I am obliged not to pay that deference to the sentiments of the Fathers he mentions, as he does, but must conclude the notion to be altogether ungrounded, though it is supported by the credit of Irenæus, Tertullian, Epiphanius, Methodius, as well as of several Jewish writers; such as Philo, and some others,[149]

[3.] We shall now consider another doctrine, maintained by some, which is inconsistent with what is said in this answer, concerning the souls of believers being made perfect in holiness, and entering immediately into heaven, when separate from their bodies, _viz._ that at death the soul sleeps as well as the body, till the resurrection, when one shall be raised, and the other awakened out of its sleep. These do not suppose that the soul ceases to exist; but that it enters into, and continues in, a state of inactivity, without any power to exercise the faculty of thinking, and, as a consequence thereof, whilst remaining in this state, it must be incapable either of happiness or misery. These do not assert that there shall be no rewards and punishments in a future state; but that there will be a deferring thereof until the last day.

This doctrine was generally maintained by the Socinians, as may be seen in several of their writings referred to by a learned author, who opposes them;[150] and the arguments by which it is usually supported, are taken partly from the possibility of the soul’s being destitute of thought, and partly from those scriptures that compare death to a sleep; by which they understand not only a cessation of action in the body, but likewise in the soul. In defence of the former of these, _viz._ that it is possible for the soul to be without the exercise of thought, they argue, that the soul of a new-born infant, (or, at least, before it is born,) has no ideas: though there be a power of reasoning, which is essential, to the soul; yet this is not deduced into act, so as to produce thought, or actual reasoning, from whence moral good or evil would proceed, and a sense of happiness or misery, arise from it. And this notion is carried somewhat farther by a late celebrated writer;[151] who, though he takes no notice of the tendency of his assertion to support this opinion concerning the soul’s sleeping at death; yet others make a handle of it, to defend it with a greater shew of reason than what was formerly discovered in maintaining this argument.

He asserts, that the souls of those that are adult do not always think; and particularly when a person is in a sound sleep, that he has no thought; how much soever there may be the exercise of thought, though confused and irregular, in those who, between sleeping and waking, not only dream a thousand things which they never thought of before, but also remember those dreams when they awake. That a person, in a sound sleep, has no dreams, and consequently is destitute of thought, he attempts to prove; inasmuch as when any one is suddenly waked out of a sound sleep, he can give no account of what he had been thinking of; and he supposes it impossible for a person who was thinking, to forget the next moment what his thoughts were conversant about. This is the principal argument whereby he supports this notion; and he has so far the advantage thereof, as that it is impossible for us to prove the contrary from any thing that we know or experience concerning ourselves: Nevertheless, it will not appear very convincing, when we consider that there are innumerable thoughts which we have when awake, that we can hardly give an account of the next minute: And if the thoughts are very active in those that dream, (who are as much asleep as others that do not dream; though the sleep may not be so refreshing as if it were otherwise,) I cannot see how this consequence can be inferred, that sleep is inconsistent with thought. Moreover, a person who is delirious, or distracted, undoubtedly thinks, though his thoughts are disordered; but when the _delirium_ or distraction is over, he can no more remember what he thought of, than a person that is waked out of the soundest sleep: This argument therefore tends rather to amuse, or embarrass the cause they maintain, than to give sufficient conviction.

Now from this method of reasoning it is inferred, that when the soul is separated from the body, it is altogether destitute of the exercise of thought, which is what they mean by the soul’s sleeping: And to give farther countenance to this matter, they produce several scriptures, in which death is compared to a sleep; as when God speaks of the death of Moses, he says, _Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers_, Deut. xxxi. 26. and Job speaks of _sleeping in the dust_, Job vii. 21. And concerning the resurrection after death, he says, _That man lieth down and riseth not, till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake nor be raised out of their sleep_, chap. xiv. 12. and David prays, _Lighten mine eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death_, Psal. xiii. 3. and our Saviour, speaking concerning Lazarus, when dead, says, _Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go that I may awake him out of sleep_, John xi. 11. which he afterwards explains, ver. 14. when he says, _Lazarus is dead_. There are several other scriptures to the like purpose, they bring to prove that the soul sleeps in death, taking the word in the literal sense thereof.

But to this it may be replied, that as to what respects the possibility of the soul’s being rendered incapable of thinking, when separate from the body; it is no just way of reasoning to infer from the possibility of a thing, the actual being of it: Therefore if it could be proved to a demonstration, (as the author above-mentioned supposes he has done, though, I think, without sufficient ground,) that sleep deprives a person of thought; yet it will not follow from hence, that the soul, when separate from the body, ceases to think. When the powers and faculties of the soul are deduced into act, experience tells us, that they are greatly improved and strengthened; and therefore the exercise thereof cannot be so easily impeded as is pretended; especially when we consider that it does not derive this from the body, which contributes very little to those ideas it has of things immaterial, which are not the objects of sense; and how much soever bodily diseases may weaken or interrupt the soul in its actings, we do not find that they so far destroy those powers, but that, when the distemper ceases, the former actings return, like the spring of a watch, which may be stopped by something that hinders the motion of the wheels, which, when it is removed, continues to give motion to them as it had done before: The body, at most, can be considered but as a clog and impediment to the activity of the soul; and consequently it may be argued from thence, that in a state of separation the soul is so far from being impeded in its actings, that it becomes more active than before.

But that which I would principally insist on, as what will sufficiently overthrow this doctrine, is, the account which we have in many scriptures; and several just consequences which may be deduced from them, by which it will appear, that nothing that has been said concerning the possibility of the soul’s being unactive, when separate from the body, can enervate the force of the argument taken from thence to support the contrary doctrine. It is true, the scripture oftentimes represents death as a _sleep_, as in the places before-mentioned; and it is sometimes described as a state of rest, which is of the same import with sleep; but this is explained as a state of peace, holiness, and happiness, and not a cessation from action. Thus it is said, _He shall enter into peace, they shall rest in their beds, each one walking in his uprightness_, Isa. lvii. 2. which is plainly meant of the death of the righteous, as appears from the preceding verse, where it is said, _The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart_. Now these are said to _enter into peace_; which supposes that they are capable of the enjoyment of those blessings which the soul shall then be possessed of, and they are said to _walk in their uprightness_; which signifies their being active in what respects the glory of God, which is very inconsistent with the soul’s sleeping, when separate from the body. Rest and sleep are metaphorical expressions, when applied to this doctrine; and nothing is more common than for such figurative ways of speaking to be used in the sacred writings; and therefore it is very absurd for us to understand the words otherwise in this instance before us.

We will now proceed to consider those proofs we have from scripture, of the soul’s being in a state of activity when separate from the body.