Quest. LXXXVI. What is the communion in glory with Christ, which the members of the invisible church enjoy immediately after death?

Answ. The communion in glory with Christ, which the members of the invisible church enjoy immediately after death, is, in that their souls are then made perfect in holiness, and received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies, which, even in death, continue united to Christ, and rest in their graves as in their beds, till at the last day they be again united to their souls: Whereas the souls of the wicked are at death cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, and their bodies kept in their graves, as in their prisons, till the resurrection and judgment of the great day.

Having considered the soul as separated from the body by death; the next thing that will be enquired into, is what becomes of it, and how it is disposed of in its separate state? and here we find that there is a vast difference between the righteous and the wicked in this respect: the former have communion with Christ in glory, the latter are in a state of banishment and separation from him; being cast into hell, and there remaining in torments and utter darkness. Both these are particularly insisted on in this answer. In speaking to which, we must consider,

I. That there is something supposed; namely, that the soul of man is immortal; otherwise it could not be capable of happiness or misery.

II. We shall consider the happiness which the members of the invisible church enjoy; which is called communion with Christ in glory.

III. The misery which the souls of the wicked endure at death; which is contained in the latter part of the answer.

I. To speak concerning the thing supposed in this answer; namely, that the soul of man is immortal. This is a subject of that importance, that we must be first convinced of the truth of it before we can conclude that there is a state of happiness or misery in another world. But before we proceed to the proof of it, it is necessary for us to explain what we are to understand thereby; accordingly let it be premised,

1. That we read, in scripture, of the death of the soul, in a spiritual sense, as separated by sin, from God, the fountain of life and blessedness, and as being destitute of a principle of grace; whereby it is utterly indisposed to perform any actions that are spiritually good, as much as a dead man is unable to perform the functions of life. In this sense we are to understand the apostle’s words, She that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth, 1 Tim. v. 6. And in this respect unregenerate persons are said to be dead in trespasses and sins, Eph. ii. 1. and a condemned state, which is the consequence hereof, is a state of death. Now that which is opposed hereunto, is called, in scripture, a spiritual life, or immortality; but this is not the sense in which we are to consider it in our present argument.

2. Immortality may be considered as an attribute peculiar to God, as the apostle says, he only hath immortality, 1 Tim. vi. 16. the meaning of which is, that his life, which includes his Being, and all his perfections, is necessary and independent; but in this respect no creature is immortal; but their life is maintained by the will and providence of God, which gave being to it at first.

3. When we speak of creatures being immortal, we must consider them either as not having any thing in the constitution of their nature, that tends to a dissolution, which cannot be effected by any second cause; or their eternal existence, pursuant to the will of God, who could, had he pleased, have annihilated them. It is in both these senses that we are to consider the immortality of the soul.

That it is in its own nature immortal, has been allowed by many of the Heathens, who have had just conceptions of the spirituality of its nature, possessed due regards to the providence of God, and those marks of distinction that he puts between good and bad men, as the consequence of their behaviour in this life. That the soul survives the body, has been reckoned, by some of the Heathens, as an opinion that has almost universally obtained in the world^[125]. Thus Plato introduces Socrates^[126] as discoursing largely on this subject, immediately before his death: and, in some, other of his writings, not only asserts, but gives as good proofs of this doctrine as any one, destitute of scripture-light, could do. One of his followers, in the account he gives of his doctrine, recommends and insists on an argument which he brings to prove it, which is not without its weight, namely, that the soul acts from a principle seated in its own nature, and not by the influence of some external cause, as things material do^[127]. And Strabo speaks of the ancient Brachmans, among the Indians, as entertaining some notions of the immortality of the soul, and the judgment passed upon it in its separate state; agreeable to what Plato advances on that subject^[128].

Some, indeed, have thought that this notion took its rise from Thales, the Milesian, who lived between two and three hundred years before Plato, and about six hundred years before the Christian Æra, from an occasional passage mentioned by Diogenes Laertius, in his life, which is hardly sufficient to justify this supposition; which he brings in only as matter of report^[129]: And Cicero^[130] supposes it was first propagated by Pherecydes, who was cotemporary with him; though Diogenes Laertius makes no mention of it. But it may be inferred from many things in Homer, the oldest writer in the Greek tongue, who lived above three hundred years before Thales, that the world had entertained some confused ideas of it in his time: As we often find him bringing in the souls of the deceased heroes appearing in a form, and speaking with a voice like that which they had when living, to their surviving friends. And he not only supposes, but plainly intimates that their souls existed in a separate state^[131]. And in other places he represents some suffering punishment for their crimes committed here on earth^[132]; which plainly argues, whatever fabulous account we have of the nature of punishment, or the person suffering it, that it was an opinion, generally received at that time, that the soul existed in a separate state.

And, indeed, this maybe inferred from the doctrine of DÆmons, or the superstitious worship of the heathens, which they paid to the souls of those heroes who formerly lived on earth, and had done some things which they thought rendered them the peculiar favourites of God, and the objects of worship by men; and that their souls existed with God in great honour and favour in a separate state^[133]. But passing this by, it may be farther observed, that whatever notions some of the heathens had of the immortality of the soul in general; they were very much at a loss, many of them, in determining the place, or many things relating to the state in which they were; and therefore many of them, with Pythagoras, asserted the doctrine of transmigration of souls, or their passing from one body to another; and being condemned to reside in vile and dishonourable bodies; which, though it perverts, yet doth not overthrow the doctrine of the soul’s immortality; and others seemed to doubt whether, after four or five courses of transmigration of souls from one body to another, they might not at last shrivel into nothing.

It must also be acknowledged, that there was a considerable party among the heathen that adhered to the sentiments of Epicurus, who denied the immortality of the soul, as supposing it to be material. And the Sadducees are represented, in scripture, as imbibing that notion; who are said to deny both angels and spirits, Acts xxiii. 8. In this respect they gave into his philosophy, as to what concerns his denying the immortality of the soul, or its existence in a future state^[134]: But passing this by, we may observe, that notwithstanding all that has been said concerning this doctrine, by the better and wiser part of the heathen in their writings; yet their notions seem very defective, if we trace them farther than what concerns the bare separate existence of the soul; or, if they attempt to speak any thing concerning its happiness in a future state, they then discover that they know but little of this matter; and many of them, though they cannot deny the soul’s immortality, yet they seem to hesitate about it; and therefore we may say with the apostle, that life and immortality is brought to light through the gospel, 2 Tim. i. 10. that is, if we would be sure of the immortality of the soul, and know its state and enjoyments in another world, we must look farther than the light of nature for it: and in seeking for arguments in scripture, we shall find great satisfaction concerning this matter, which we cannot do from the writers before mentioned.

That some of the heathen were in doubt about this important truth, is very evident from their writings; for Plato himself^[135], notwithstanding the many things which he represents Socrates as saying, concerning a state of immortality after death, endeavouring to convince his friend Cebes about that matter, and apprehending that he had so far prevailed in the argument, as that his antagonist allowed that the soul survived the body, but yet held the transmigration of souls into other bodies; this he seems to allow him, and adds, that it is uncertain whether the soul, having worn out many bodies, may not at last perish with one that it is united to^[136]. And he farther says to him, that I must now die, and you shall live; but which of us is in the better state God only knows^[137].

As for Aristotle, though, in many places of his writings, he seems to maintain the immortality of the soul; yet in others it appears that he is in doubt about it; and seems to assert, that neither good nor evil happens to any man after his death^[138]. And the Stoicks, who did not altogether deny this doctrine; yet they supposed that in process of time, it would be dissolved^[139]. And even Cicero himself, notwithstanding all that he says, by which he seems to give into this doctrine; yet sometimes speaks with great hesitation about it^[140]. And notwithstanding what Seneca says concerning the immortality of the soul, as has been often before observed; yet he speaks doubtfully of it^[141]; so that we must have recourse to scripture, and those consequences that are deduced from it, as well as those things that may be inferred from the nature of the soul to prove that it is immortal. And,

(1.) For the proof of this doctrine, let it be considered, that the soul is immaterial; which appears from its being capable of thought, whereby it is conversant about, and takes in ideas of things divine and spiritual, which no creature below man can do. It has a power of inferring consequences from premises, and accordingly is the subject of moral government, capable of conversing with God here, and expecting rewards or punishments from him hereafter; all this cannot be produced by matter or motion: As for matter, that is in itself altogether unactive; and when motion is impressed upon it, the only change that is made therein, is in the situation and contexture of its parts, which cannot give it life, sensation or perception, much less a power of judging and willing, or being conversant about things spiritual and immaterial.

(2.) This power of thinking or reasoning was not derived from the body to which it was united; for that which has not in itself those superior endowments, cannot communicate them to another: Its union with the soul cannot impart them to it; for whatever sensation the body has, (which is below the power of reasoning,) is derived from the soul, as appears from its being wholly destitute thereof, when the union between the soul and body is broken: And therefore, since those superior powers, or excellencies of the soul, are produced by another cause, we must conclude, that they are immediately from God: This evidently appears from scripture; the body of Adam was first formed, and then it is said, God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, Gen. ii. 7. that is, he put into it that soul which was the spring and fountain of all living actions; and then it follows, man became a living soul: And it is considered as a peculiar display of the glory of God, that he formeth the spirit of man within him, Zech. xii. 2.

(3.) It follows from hence, that the dissolution of the body makes no alteration in the powers and faculties of the soul; which is not hereby rendered subject to death. For, as it did not derive those powers from the body, as was before observed, it could not be said to lose them in the ruin of the body: Thus our Saviour speaks of the soul as not being affected with those injuries that tend to the bodies destruction, when he says, Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul, Mat. x. 28.

(4.) We have a particular account in scripture, of the soul when separated from the body, as disposed of in a different way from it; it does not go down to the earth as the body does, from whence it was, but returns to God who gave it, Eccl. xii. 7. Its return to God supposes that it was accountable to him for its actions performed in the body, or the way and manner in which the faculties were exerted; and accordingly, when separate from it, it is represented as returning to God to give an account of its behaviour in the body, and to reap the fruits and effects thereof. And as it is said to return to God; so believers breathe forth their souls, and resign them by faith into the hand of God, as our Saviour expresses it, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit, Luke xxiii. 46. or, as Stephen says, Lord Jesus receive my spirit, Acts vii. 59.

(5.) The soul’s immortality may be proved from the extent of the capacities thereof, and the small improvement men make of them in this world, especially the greatest part of mankind. What a multitude are there who never had the faculties of the soul deduced into act, in whom the powers of reasoning were altogether useless, while in this world; I mean in those whose souls are separated from their bodies as soon as they are born; others die in their childhood, before reason comes to maturity; and how great a part of the world live to old age, whose souls have not been employed in any thing great or excellent, in proportion to their capacities? Were these made in vain? or did God design, when he brought them into, or continued them either a longer or a shorter time in the world, that they should never be employed in any thing that is worthy of these noble faculties? Therefore we must conclude that there is another state, in which the soul shall act more agreeably to those capacities which it is endowed with.

(6.) This may be farther proved, not only from the natural desires, which there are in all men, of immortality; but more especially those desires, which the saints have, of enjoying some things in God, which cannot be attained in this life. The natural desire of immortality is what belongs to all: With what reluctancy does the soul and body part; which arises from a natural aversion to a dissolution, unless there be a well-grounded hope of a life of blessedness that shall ensue? Moreover there is not only a desire but an expectation of the soul’s living for ever, when separated from the body, in a state of happiness; which believers are made partakers of, as a peculiar blessing from God: Therefore we must conclude, that he that gave them will satisfy them; so that as they have a thirst after happiness, which is the effect of a supernatural power, they shall not be disappointed or destitute of it; which they must be if the soul does not survive the body.

(7.) The immortality of the soul may be proved from the justice of God as the Governor of the world. This divine perfection renders it necessary that rewards and punishments should be distributed according to men’s behaviour in this life. We observe, under a foregoing head, that man is supposed to be accountable to God, from the consideration of the spirit’s returning to him: And it also follows, from what was said under another head, concerning the soul’s being the subject of moral government: But this argument will be farther improved under a following answer, when we consider our Saviour’s coming to judge the world^[142]. All the use therefore that we shall at present make thereof, is, that the soul being thus accountable to God, has reason to expect some peculiar marks of favour beyond what it receives in this world; or to fear some punishment as the consequence of crimes committed, from the hand of the supreme Judge of all: Thus it is said, God will render to every man according to his deeds, Rom. ii. 6. And elsewhere, Every one shall receive according to what he hath done in the body, whether it be good or bad, 2 Cor. v. 10. Now that which makes for our present argument, is, that the best men in the world do not receive those peculiar marks of divine favour, as to what respects their outward condition therein, as some of the vilest men often do: This the prophet Jeremiah takes notice of, when he says, Righteous art thou, O Lord, when I plead with thee; yet let me talk with thee of thy judgments: Wherefore doth the way of the wicked prosper? Wherefore are all they happy that deal very treacherously? Jer. xii. 1. And the Psalmist, when observing the prosperity of the wicked, says, They are not in trouble like other men; neither are they plagued like other men, Psal. lxxiii. 5. that is, not exposed to those rebukes of providence, as to what concerns outward things, as good men are.

That which is alledged by some to solve this difficulty, is, that virtue has its own reward; and therefore, the good man cannot but be happy, whatever troubles he meets with in this life, since he has something within himself that makes him so. But to this it may be replied, that this cannot give the least satisfaction, that the divine distributions are just and equal, to those who are destitute of this inward comfort; and the principal ingredient in that internal happiness which arises from the exercise of religion and virtue, consists in the divine approbation, and the interest which such have in that love, which shall discover itself more fully, when the soul, being separate from the body, shall enjoy the happiness resulting from it in another world: Therefore, this is so far from militating against the doctrine we are maintaining, that it affords a considerable argument to support it.

If it be objected also, on the other hand, that sin brings its own punishment along with it, in that uneasiness which the wicked find in their own breasts; concerning whom it is said, They are like the troubled sea when it cannot rest; whose waters cast up mire and dirt, Isa. lvii. 20. This also proves the immortality of the soul; inasmuch as this fear arises from a sense of guilt, whereby persons are liable to punishment in another world, who are not in the least concerned about the punishment of sin in this, and are ready to conclude themselves out of the reach of human judicature; therefore, that which they are afraid of, is God’s righteous judgments in another world, which they cannot, by any means, free themselves from the dread of. We must therefore conclude that this is as natural to man, considered as sinful, as the hope of future blessedness is to one that is righteous; and both these are the result of a divine impression enstamped on the souls of men, which affords an evident proof of their immortality.

The objections against this doctrine, are generally such as carry in them the lowest and most abject thoughts of human nature in those who may truly be said to despise their own souls. When they pretend, as was before observed, that they are material, this is to set the soul on a level with the body; for matter, how much soever it be refined, when it is resolved into the particles of which it consists, has no excellency above other material beings.

As to the objections that are brought against this doctrine from scripture, by which the frailty of this present life is set forth: These do not in the least tend to overthrow the immortality of the soul. Thus, when it is said in Eccles. iii. 19, 20. That which befalleth the sons of men, befalleth beasts, even one thing befalleth them: As the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no pre-eminence above a beast; all go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. It is plain, that Solomon here speaks of the inferior part of man, in which he has no pre-eminence above the beasts, as the body is resolved into dust, as well as the bodies of the brute creatures; but then the following words sufficiently confute the objection, in which it is said, the spirit of man goeth upward; whereby he asserts, not only the superior excellency, but the immortality of the soul.

Again, when it is said in chap. ix. 5. The living know that they must die, but the dead know not any thing; neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. This is sufficiently answered by only reading the following words; by which it appears, that their memory is forgotten; and they are said to have no farther reward in this world; or, as it is expressed, They have no more any portion for ever, in any thing that is done under the sun; but this does not in the least intimate that they have no portion in what respects the things of another world; and, indeed, their labour being unrewarded here, affords us an incontestible argument, that they shall have it hereafter, when the soul leaves this world.

And as for other scriptures, that seem to intimate as though death put an end to all those actions of religion which were performed by good men in this life, as in Psal. xxx. 9. ‘When I go down to the pit, shall the dust praise thee, shall it declare thy truth?’ and, ‘The dead praise not the Lord; neither any that go down into silence,’ Psal. cxv. 17. and what Hezekiah says to the same purpose, ‘The grave cannot praise thee; death cannot celebrate thee; they that go down to the pit cannot hope for thy truth,’ Isa. xxxviii. 18. These and such-like expressions intend nothing else but this; that the praises of God cannot be celebrated by those who are in the state of the dead, in such a way as they were by them while they lived in this world, viz. in the assemblies of his saints, from which they are separated, being no longer considered as members of the militant church; neither are they apprized of, or affected with the things done in this lower world, in which respect they are said to know nothing: But this does not in the least, militate against their praising God with the church triumphant, and having those privileges conferred upon them, which are adapted to a state of immortality and eternal life.

As to what is farther objected by others, that the immortality of the soul respects only the righteous; because the apostle says in 1 John ii. 17. ‘The world passes away, and the lust thereof, but he that doth the will of God abideth for ever.’ This sense given of the words contradicts all those scriptures that speak of the punishment of sin in another world; for if none are said to abide for ever, but the righteous, or they who do the will of God; the wicked must necessarily go unpunished. Therefore we must understand the word abiding in the same sense as the Psalmist does, when he says, ‘The ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous,’ Psal. i. 5. which does not signify their not existing in a future state, but not being admitted into the congregation of the righteous, or made happy with them therein.^[143]

II. We shall consider the happiness that the members of the invisible church enjoy; which is called communion with Christ in glory, as it includes in it perfect holiness; accordingly we read of the spirits of just men made perfect, Heb. xii. 23. This perfection consists in the rooting out all those remainders of corruption, and those habitual inclinations to sin, that they were never wholly freed from in this world. The most that can be said concerning a believer at present, is, that he has a principle of spiritual life and grace, which inclines him to oppose, and stand his ground against, the assaults of sin that dwelleth in him, whereby it is mortified, but not wholly destroyed. The work of sanctification is daily growing to perfection, though it does not fully attain to it: But when the soul leaves the world, it arrives to perfection in a moment; so that the power which man had at first, to yield sinless obedience, which was lost by the fall of our first parents, is regained with great advantage. For this perfection of holiness not only denotes a sinless state, but the soul’s being confirmed therein; and accordingly it is said to be received into the highest heaven, the place into which no unclean thing can enter; where there is spotless purity, as well as everlasting happiness; and here they are described as beholding the face of God in light and glory. These things need not be particularly insisted on in this place, since the same privileges are said, in a following answer, to belong to believers after the day of judgment, both in their souls and bodies, when they shall be received into heaven, and be made perfectly holy and happy, and be blest with the immediate vision of God^[144]; Therefore all that we shall consider at present, with relation hereunto, is,

1. That the soul is immediately made partaker of this blessedness on its separation from the body.

2. It is farther described as waiting for the full redemption of the body, which is still supposed to continue under the dominion of death, though united to Christ, and consequently under his special protection: Upon which account believers are said, when they die, to rest in their graves as in their beds, till their bodies are again united to their souls at the last day.

1. We shall consider that the soul is made partaker of this blessedness immediately after its separation from the body, as it is observed in this answer; which seems to militate against three opinions that have been advanced relating to the state of separate souls.

[1.] That of the Papists, who maintain that the soul is not made perfect in holiness at death, but enters into a middle-state, which they call purgatory, in which it is to endure exquisite torments, designed partly as a punishment inflicted for those sins committed in this life, which have not been expiated by satisfaction made by them, and partly to free them from the sin which they brought with them into that state.

[2.] Another opinion which seems to be opposed in this answer, is what was maintained by some of the ancient Fathers; namely, that the souls of believers do not immediately enter into the highest heaven before they are reunited to their bodies, but into paradise; not to suffer, as the Papists pretend that they do who are in purgatory; but to enjoy those pleasures which are reserved for them in a place not much inferior to heaven.

[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.

The first scripture that may be brought to prove this, is what the apostle says in 2 Cor. xii. 2, 3, 4. when speaking concerning himself as caught up into the third heaven; and not knowing whether he was at the same time, in, or out of the body. If he was in the body, his senses were locked up, and he must be supposed to have been in a trance; which militates against the supposition that the soul’s power of acting may be impeded either by sleep or some bodily disease, in which there is not the exercise of the senses. Or if, on the other hand, he was out of the body, his hearing unspeakable words plainly proves our argument, viz. that the soul is capable of action, and consequently of enjoying the heavenly glory, when separate from the body.

Moreover, this is evident from our Saviour’s words to the penitent thief on the cross, Verily I say unto thee, to day shalt thou be with me in paradise, Luke xxiii. 43. To be in paradise is certainly to be in heaven in a state of compleat blessedness, where the soul delights itself in the enjoyment of God, which is altogether inconsistent with a state of insensibility. Were it otherwise, it ought rather to have been said, thou shalt be with me in paradise after the resurrection of the body, than to day. The method which some take to evade the force of the argument, who say, that to day, refers not to the time of his being admitted into heaven, but to the time when Christ spake these words, is so low and trifling, that it doth not deserve an answer.

There is another scripture which fully proves this doctrine, namely, what the apostle says, I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart and to be with Christ, which is far better, Phil. i. 23. In which he takes it for granted, that as soon as he departed out of this world, he should be with Christ; which denotes that he should be in his immediate presence, beholding his glory; which is inconsistent with the supposition that the soul sleeps at death. And this is farther evident from what he says, that this is far better, which could not be said to be, if the notion we are opposing were true; for it is so much better for a saint to be serving Christ’s interest in this world, and made so eminently useful in promoting his glory, as the apostle was, than to be in a state of inactivity, wherein the soul is not capable of doing any thing for him, nor enjoying any thing from him, that there is no comparison between them; and whereas he was in a strait which of these two he should chuse, had it been referred to him, the matter might easily have been determined in favour of his continuing in this world; for there he was useful; whereas, in the other, he would not only be useless, but incapable of enjoying those privileges which he was made partaker of here.

My next argument shall be taken from what is said in 2 Cor. v. 8. We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord; where one infers the other, without any intimation of his waiting till the soul is united again to the body, before he is admitted into Christ’s presence.

Again, this farther appears from the words of Solomon, in Eccl. iv. 2. I praised the dead which are already dead, more than the living which are yet alive. By which we are to understand, that the state of believers, when they die, is much more happy than it can be in this life; which supposes that they are capable of happiness, and consequently that the soul, when separated from the body, is not in a state of insensibility; which is altogether inconsistent with happiness.

And to all this we may add what our Saviour says in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus; the beggar died, and was carried by angels into Abraham’s bosom: The rich man also died and was buried, and in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, Luke xvi. 22, 23. In which parable we have an account of the different state of the souls of the righteous and wicked at death, and not barely what shall follow upon the resurrection of the body; for when the rich man is represented as being in torments, he says, in a following part of the parable, I have five brethren; and he would have had Lazarus sent to testify to them, lest they should also come into that place of torment; to which it is replied, They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them, ver. 28, 29. which plainly intimates, that the parable refers to the state of separate souls, before the resurrection, whilst others enjoyed the means of grace; and consequently it proves that the soul, when separate from the body, is capable of happiness or misery; and which is more, is fixed in one or the other of them.

As to those scriptures that speak of the happiness or misery of men, as deferred to the end of the world. It is intimated in the parable of the tares, that the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from the just, Mat. xiii. 9. and the former are said to be cast into a furnace of fire, ver. 49, 50. and the latter, viz. the righteous, to shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father, ver. 43. which respects the dealings of God with man, in the end of time. Moreover our Saviour speaks of his people as blessed and recompensed at the resurrection of the just, Luke xiv. 14. And the apostle Paul expresses his hope of a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, should give him at that day, 2 Tim. iv. 8. that is, the day of his coming to judgment; and several other scriptures that speak of what is consequent to the resurrection. To this it may be replied, that these scriptures respect not the beginning, but consummation of the happiness of the saints, or their compleat blessedness in soul and body, which is not inconsistent with the happiness that separate souls enjoy before the resurrection. Nor is the misery that is consequent upon the resurrection, inconsistent with that which sinners endure before it, when their souls are separate from their bodies. Thus concerning the happiness of the souls of believers at death; which leads us to consider,

2. What is farther observed in this answer, concerning the soul’s waiting for the full redemption of the body; which though it continues under the dominion of death, is notwithstanding united to Christ; and accordingly believers are said to rest in their graves as in their beds, till the resurrection.

The souls of believers are described as waiting for the full redemption of their bodies; which is the same expression that the apostle uses, Rom. viii. 23. where redemption denotes a full discharge from that prison, or state of confinement in the grave; in which the body was rendered incapable of answering the end for which it was redeemed by Christ, and, at the same time, the soul was destitute of that happiness which its re-union therewith shall convey to it. Its enjoyments were all spiritual, and, in their kind perfect; but yet it was naked, or, as the apostle expresses it unclothed; inasmuch as it wanted that which was designed to be a constituent part, necessary to compleat the human nature; without which it was indisposed for those actions and enjoyments which arise from its union with the body. This it is said to wait for, as a desire of re-union therewith is natural to it. Nevertheless it waits without impatience, or any diminution of its intellectual happiness.

(2.) As to what respects the bodies of believers, they are said to continue united to Christ, which is the result of their being redeemed by him, and of his condescending to dwell in them by his Spirit. Accordingly his love extends itself to their lower part, as well as to their souls; and, as the apostle says, Nothing shall separate a believer from his love, no, not death itself, ver. 38, 39. upon which account they are said to sleep in Jesus, 1 Thes. iv. 14. or to die in the Lord, Rev. xiv. 14. They are indeed buried in the grave, and seem to lie neglected like common dust: nevertheless it is said, Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints, Psal. cxvi. 15. Christ reckons every particle of their dust among his jewels, Mal. iii. 17. and is no more ashamed to own them as his peculiar care, than he was when they were in their most flourishing state in this world; and for this reason they are also said to rest in their graves as in their beds. This is a scripture-expression, as the Psalmist says, My flesh shall rest in hope, Psal. xvi. 9. and the prophet Isaiah, He shall enter into peace, they shall rest in their beds, Isa. lvii. 2. The body, indeed, remains, at the same time, under the external part of the curse due to man for sin; yet it is freed from that which is the most bitter ingredient therein; which will be abundantly demonstrated when death shall be compleatly swallowed up in victory. In this the bodies of believers have the advantage of all others. The frame of nature indeed is dissolved; there is no visible mark of distinction from the wicked put upon them in the grave; yet there is a vast difference in God’s account, which one elegantly compares to the removing of the tabernacle in the wilderness: when the Israelites changed their stations, all the parts thereof were carefully taken down and delivered to the Levites’ charge, in order to its being raised again with honour; whereas, the house incurably infected with the leprosy, was plucked down with violence, and thrown into an unclean place with execration. The bodies of the saints are committed to the bosom of the earth, as the repository Christ has appointed for them; from whence he will call them forth at last, when their souls shall be again united to them in the glorious morning of the resurrection. This leads us to consider,

III. The misery which the souls of the wicked endure at death, which is contained in the latter part of this answer.

We have here a different scene opened, the final estate of the wicked described in words adapted to strike dread and terror into those who have, at present, no sense of their future misery: their souls are considered as cast into, or shut up in hell; their bodies imprisoned in the grave, and both, the objects of divine wrath. We shall have occasion, under a following answer,^[152] farther to speak concerning the punishment that shall be inflicted on sinners, whose torments shall be inexpressible, both in body and soul, after the day of judgment: and therefore we shall, at present, consider the misery which the souls of the wicked shall undergo before they are united to their bodies. The soul, which carries out of the world with it the power of reflecting on itself as happy or miserable, immediately sees itself separate from the comfortable presence of God, the fountain of blessedness. And that which tends to enhance its misery beyond what it is capable of in this life, will be the enlargement of its faculties; as the apprehension shall be more clear and its sensation of the wrath of God more pungent; when it is not oppressed with that drowsiness and stupidity as it was before; nor will it be possible for it to delude itself, with those vain hopes, which it once conceived, of escaping that misery, which it is now plunged into; when all the waves and billows of the Almighty shall overwhelm and swallow it up. The soul is, in a peculiar manner, the subject of misery, as it is made uneasy by its own thoughts; which are compared to the worm that dieth not. While it looks backwards, and calls to mind the actions of his past life, and all his sins are charged upon him, this fills it with such a sense of guilt and confusion as is inexpressibly tormenting; and when he looks forward, there is nothing but what administers despair, which increases his misery to the highest degree. These torments the soul endures before it is reunited to the body, and thereby rendered receptive of others, which we generally call the punishment of sense, that are conveyed by it.

The place of punishment is the same that is allotted for soul and body, viz. hell; and this is called utter darkness; which is an expression used to signify the greatest degree of misery. As for their bodies, they dread the thoughts of being united to them again; inasmuch as that will bring with it new accessions of torment. These are considered as liable to a double dishonour; not only that which arises from their being in a state of corruption in common with all mankind; but in their being detained in the grave, as prisoners to the justice of God, from whence they shall not be released as persons acquitted or discharged, but remanded from that prison to another, from whence there is no deliverance. But more of this under a following answer.