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.