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.