Spiritual Darkness from Misinterpreting Scripture

Besides these Soveraign Powers, Divine, and Humane, of which I have hitherto discoursed, there is mention in Scripture of another Power, namely, (Eph. 6. 12.), that of “the Rulers of the Darknesse of this world,” (Mat. 12. 26.), “the Kingdome of Satan,” and, (Mat. 9. 34.), “the Principality of Beelzebub over Daemons,” that is to say, over Phantasmes that appear in the Air: For which cause Satan is also called (Eph. 2. 2.) “the Prince of the Power of the Air;” and (because he ruleth in the darknesse of this world) (Joh. 16. 11.) “The Prince of this world;” And in consequence hereunto, they who are under his Dominion, in opposition to the faithfull (who are the Children Of The Light) are called the Children Of Darknesse. For seeing Beelzebub is Prince of Phantasmes, Inhabitants of his Dominion of Air and Darknesse, the Children of Darknesse, and these Daemons, Phantasmes, or Spirits of Illusion, signifie allegorically the same thing. This considered, the Kingdome of Darknesse, as it is set forth in these, and other places of the Scripture, is nothing else but a “Confederacy of Deceivers, that to obtain dominion over men in this present world, endeavour by dark, and erroneous Doctrines, to extinguish in them the Light, both of Nature, and of the Gospell; and so to dis-prepare them for the Kingdome of God to come.”

Besides the divine and human sovereign powers I have discussed so far, Scripture mentions another power. It speaks of “the rulers of the darkness of this world” (Eph. 6. 12.). It also mentions “the kingdom of Satan” (Mat. 12. 26.) and “Beelzebub’s rule over Daemons” (Mat. 9. 34.). These Daemons are phantoms that appear in the air. For this reason, Satan is also called “the prince of the power of the air” (Eph. 2. 2.). Because Satan rules in the darkness of this world, he is called “the prince of this world” (Joh. 16. 11.). Accordingly, those under his rule are called the children of darkness, in contrast to the faithful, the children of light. Beelzebub is the prince of phantoms, who inhabit his realm of air and darkness. Therefore, the children of darkness and these Daemons, phantoms, or spirits of illusion mean the same thing allegorically. With this in mind, the kingdom of darkness described in these and other passages of Scripture is nothing but a “league of deceivers. To gain power over people in this world, these deceivers try to extinguish the light within them. Through obscure and false teachings, they attack both the light of nature and the light of the Gospel. In this way, they seek to leave people unprepared for the kingdom of God to come.”

As men that are utterly deprived from their Nativity, of the light of the bodily Eye, have no Idea at all, of any such light; and no man conceives in his imagination any greater light, than he hath at some time, or other perceived by his outward Senses: so also is it of the light of the Gospel, and of the light of the Understanding, that no man can conceive there is any greater degree of it, than that which he hath already attained unto. And from hence it comes to passe, that men have no other means to acknowledge their owne Darknesse, but onely by reasoning from the un-forseen mischances, that befall them in their ways; The Darkest part of the Kingdome of Satan, is that which is without the Church of God; that is to say, amongst them that beleeve not in Jesus Christ. But we cannot say, that therefore the Church enjoyeth (as the land of Goshen) all the light, which to the performance of the work enjoined us by God, is necessary. Whence comes it, that in Christendome there has been, almost from the time of the Apostles, such justling of one another out of their places, both by forraign, and Civill war? such stumbling at every little asperity of their own fortune, and every little eminence of that of other men? and such diversity of ways in running to the same mark, Felicity, if it be not Night amongst us, or at least a Mist? wee are therefore yet in the Dark.

People born completely blind have no idea of light seen by the eyes. And no one can imagine a brighter light than they have at some time perceived through their senses. The same is true of the light of the Gospel and the light of understanding. No one can conceive of a greater degree of either light than they have already attained. So people can recognize their own darkness only by reasoning from the unforeseen misfortunes they encounter along their way. The darkest part of the Kingdom of Satan lies outside the Church of God, among those who do not believe in Jesus Christ. But we cannot therefore say that the Church, like the land of Goshen, enjoys all the light needed. That is, all the light needed to do the work God commands us to do. Why, then, has Christendom seen so much pushing one another out of their places through foreign and civil wars? Such struggles have continued almost since the time of the Apostles. Why do people stumble over every small setback in their own fortunes and every small advantage in other people's fortunes? And why do people follow so many different paths toward the same goal, happiness? How can we explain all this unless we are surrounded by night, or at least by mist? We are therefore still in the dark.

The Enemy has been here in the Night of our naturall Ignorance, and sown the tares of Spirituall Errors; and that, First, by abusing, and putting out the light of the Scriptures: For we erre, not knowing the Scriptures. Secondly, by introducing the Daemonology of the Heathen Poets, that is to say, their fabulous Doctrine concerning Daemons, which are but Idols, or Phantasms of the braine, without any reall nature of their own, distinct from humane fancy; such as are dead mens Ghosts, and Fairies, and other matter of old Wives tales. Thirdly, by mixing with the Scripture divers reliques of the Religion, and much of the vain and erroneous Philosophy of the Greeks, especially of Aristotle. Fourthly, by mingling with both these, false, or uncertain Traditions, and fained, or uncertain History. And so we come to erre, by “giving heed to seducing Spirits,” and the Daemonology of such “as speak lies in Hypocrisie,” (or as it is in the Originall, 1 Tim. 4.1,2. “of those that play the part of lyars”) “with a seared conscience,” that is, contrary to their own knowledge. Concerning the first of these, which is the Seducing of men by abuse of Scripture, I intend to speak briefly in this Chapter.

The Enemy has come here in the night of our natural ignorance and sown the weeds of spiritual error. He has done so in four ways. First, by misusing Scripture and putting out its light. For we go wrong because we do not know Scripture. Second, by introducing the demonology of the pagan poets, their mythical teachings about demons. These demons are only idols or images in the brain, with no real nature apart from human imagination. They include the ghosts of dead people, fairies, and other subjects of old wives’ tales. Third, by mixing Scripture with various remnants of Greek religion and much of the Greeks’ empty and mistaken philosophy, especially Aristotle’s. Fourth, by mixing Scripture and these Greek teachings with false or uncertain traditions and invented or uncertain history. And so we fall into error by “listening to deceiving spirits” and the demonology of those “who speak lies hypocritically.” Or, as the original says in 1 Timothy 4:1,2, “of those who play the part of liars.” They speak “with a seared conscience,” meaning that they speak against their own knowledge. In this chapter, I intend to discuss briefly the first of these causes: misleading people by misusing Scripture.

The greatest, and main abuse of Scripture, and to which almost all the rest are either consequent, or subservient, is the wresting of it, to prove that the Kingdome of God, mentioned so often in the Scripture, is the present Church, or multitude of Christian men now living, or that being dead, are to rise again at the last day: whereas the Kingdome of God was first instituted by the Ministery of Moses, over the Jews onely; who were therefore called his Peculiar People; and ceased afterward, in the election of Saul, when they refused to be governed by God any more, and demanded a King after the manner of the nations; which God himself consented unto, as I have more at large proved before, in the 35. Chapter. After that time, there was no other Kingdome of God in the world, by any Pact, or otherwise, than he ever was, is, and shall be King, of all men, and of all creatures, as governing according to his Will, by his infinite Power. Neverthelesse, he promised by his Prophets to restore this his Government to them again, when the time he hath in his secret counsell appointed for it shall bee fully come, and when they shall turn unto him by repentance, and amendment of life; and not onely so, but he invited also the Gentiles to come in, and enjoy the happinesse of his Reign, on the same conditions of conversion and repentance; and hee promised also to send his Son into the world, to expiate the sins of them all by his death, and to prepare them by his Doctrine, to receive him at his second coming: Which second coming not yet being, the Kingdome of God is not yet come, and wee are not now under any other Kings by Pact, but our Civill Soveraigns; saving onely, that Christian men are already in the Kingdome of Grace, in as much as they have already the Promise of being received at his comming againe.

The greatest and chief abuse of Scripture is twisting it to prove that the Kingdom of God is the present Church. Almost all other abuses either follow from this distortion or serve it. Scripture mentions the Kingdom of God so often. But this kingdom is not the body of Christians now living, or those who have died and will rise on the last day. Rather, the Kingdom of God was first established through the ministry of Moses, over the Jews alone. For this reason, the Jews were called his Peculiar People. This kingdom later ended with the choice of Saul as king. The Jews refused to be governed by God any longer and demanded a king like those of other nations. God himself agreed to their demand, as I have proved more fully in Chapter 35. After that, no Kingdom of God existed in the world through any covenant or otherwise, except his universal rule. God always was, is, and will be King of all people and all creatures. He governs them according to his will through his infinite power. Nevertheless, through his Prophets, God promised to restore his rule over the Jews. This would happen when the time appointed in his secret counsel had fully arrived. It would also require them to return to him in repentance and change their way of life. God also invited the Gentiles to enter and enjoy the happiness of his reign. The same conditions of conversion and repentance applied to them. God also promised to send his Son into the world to atone for all their sins through his death. Through his teaching, his Son would prepare them to receive him at his second coming. Since that second coming has not yet happened, the Kingdom of God has not yet come. We are therefore under no kings by covenant except our civil sovereigns. There is just one exception: Christians are already in the Kingdom of Grace. This is because they already have the promise that they will be received when his Son comes again.

Consequent to this Errour, that the present Church is Christs Kingdome, there ought to be some one Man, or Assembly, by whose mouth our Saviour (now in heaven) speaketh, giveth law, and which representeth his person to all Christians, or divers Men, or divers Assemblies that doe the same to divers parts of Christendome. This power Regal under Christ, being challenged, universally by that Pope, and in particular Common-wealths by Assemblies of the Pastors of the place, (when the Scripture gives it to none but to Civill Soveraigns,) comes to be so passionately disputed, that it putteth out the Light of Nature, and causeth so great a Darknesse in mens understanding, that they see not who it is to whom they have engaged their obedience.

From the error that the present Church is Christ’s kingdom, it follows that some man or assembly must speak for him. Through that man or assembly, our Saviour, now in heaven, would speak, give laws, and be represented to all Christians. Alternatively, different men or assemblies would do the same for different parts of Christendom. The Pope claims this royal power under Christ over all Christians. Assemblies of local pastors claim the same power within individual commonwealths. Yet Scripture gives this power only to civil sovereigns. The dispute over this power grows so passionate that it extinguishes the light of natural reason. The dispute so darkens people’s understanding that they cannot see whom they have pledged to obey.

Consequent to this claim of the Pope to Vicar Generall of Christ in the present Church, (supposed to be that Kingdom of his, to which we are addressed in the Gospel,) is the Doctrine, that it is necessary for a Christian King, to receive his Crown by a Bishop; as if it were from that Ceremony, that he derives the clause of Dei Gratia in his title; and that then onely he is made King by the favour of God, when he is crowned by the authority of Gods universall Viceregent on earth; and that every Bishop whosoever be his Soveraign, taketh at his Consecration an oath of absolute Obedience to the Pope, Consequent to the same, is the Doctrine of the fourth Councell of Lateran, held under Pope Innocent the third, (Chap. 3. De Haereticis.) “That if a King at the Popes admonition, doe not purge his Kingdome of Haeresies, and being excommunicate for the same, doe not give satisfaction within a year, his Subjects are absolved of the bond of their obedience.” Where, by Haeresies are understood all opinions which the Church of Rome hath forbidden to be maintained. And by this means, as often as there is any repugnancy between the Politicall designes of the Pope, and other Christian Princes, as there is very often, there ariseth such a Mist amongst their Subjects, that they know not a stranger that thrusteth himself into the throne of their lawfull Prince, from him whom they had themselves placed there; and in this Darknesse of mind, are made to fight one against another, without discerning their enemies from their friends, under the conduct of another mans ambition.

The Pope claims to be Christ’s chief representative in the present Church. This Church is supposedly Christ’s kingdom, to which the Gospel directs us. From this claim follows the doctrine that a Christian king must receive his crown from a bishop. It is as if this ceremony gave the king the words Dei Gratia, meaning “by God’s grace,” in his title. It is as if he became king by God’s favor only when crowned by God’s supreme representative on earth. Another consequence is the doctrine that every bishop, whoever his sovereign may be, swears absolute obedience to the Pope at his consecration. From the same claim follows the doctrine of the fourth Lateran Council, held under Pope Innocent III (Chapter 3, De Haereticis). “If a king, after the Pope’s warning, does not rid his kingdom of heresies, he is excommunicated. If he then fails to make amends within a year, his subjects are released from their duty to obey him.” Here, heresies means all opinions that the Church of Rome has forbidden people to hold. As a result, whenever the Pope’s political aims conflict with those of other Christian princes, confusion clouds their subjects’ minds. Such conflicts happen very often. The subjects cannot distinguish a stranger who forces himself onto their lawful prince’s throne from the ruler they themselves placed there. In this mental darkness, they are made to fight one another, unable to tell enemies from friends. They are led by another man’s ambition.

From the same opinion, that the present Church is the Kingdome of God, it proceeds that Pastours, Deacons, and all other Ministers of the Church, take the name to themselves of the Clergy, giving to other Christians the name of Laity, that is, simply People. For Clergy signifies those, whose maintenance is that Revenue, which God having reserved to himselfe during his Reigne over the Israelites, assigned to the tribe of Levi (who were to be his publique Ministers, and had no portion of land set them out to live on, as their brethren) to be their inheritance. The Pope therefore, (pretending the present Church to be, as the Realme of Israel, the Kingdome of God) challenging to himselfe and his subordinate Ministers, the like revenue, as the Inheritance of God, the name of Clergy was sutable to that claime. And thence it is, that Tithes, or other tributes paid to the Levites, as Gods Right, amongst the Israelites, have a long time been demanded, and taken of Christians, by Ecclesiastiques, Jure Divino, that is, in Gods Right. By which meanes, the people every where were obliged to a double tribute; one to the State, another to the Clergy; whereof, that to the Clergy, being the tenth of their revenue, is double to that which a King of Athens (and esteemed a Tyrant) exacted of his subjects for the defraying of all publique charges: For he demanded no more but the twentieth part; and yet abundantly maintained therewith the Commonwealth. And in the Kingdome of the Jewes, during the Sacerdotall Reigne of God, the Tithes and Offerings were the whole Publique Revenue.

The same belief that the present Church is the Kingdom of God leads to another practice. Pastors, Deacons, and all other Church ministers call themselves the Clergy. They call other Christians the Laity, meaning simply the People. For Clergy means those supported by the revenue God reserved for himself during his reign over the Israelites. God assigned this revenue as an inheritance to the tribe of Levi, who were to be his public ministers. Unlike their fellow Israelites, the Levites received no land to live on. The Pope claims that the present Church, like the realm of Israel, is the Kingdom of God. He therefore claims a similar revenue for himself and his subordinate ministers as God's inheritance. The name Clergy suited that claim. As a result, Church officials have long demanded and collected tithes and other payments from Christians Jure Divino, meaning by God's right. These were the payments made to the Levites among the Israelites as God's due. By these means, people everywhere were required to pay twice: once to the State and once to the Clergy. The payment to the Clergy was a tenth of their income. This was twice what a King of Athens, considered a tyrant, demanded from his subjects to cover all public expenses. For he demanded only a twentieth, yet this amply supported the Commonwealth. And in the Kingdom of the Jews, during God's priestly reign, tithes and offerings made up the entire public revenue.

From the same mistaking of the present Church for the Kingdom of God, came in the distinction betweene the Civill and the Canon Laws: The civil Law being the acts of Soveraigns in their own Dominions, and the Canon Law being the Acts of the Pope in the same Dominions. Which Canons, though they were but Canons, that is, Rules Propounded, and but voluntarily received by Christian Princes, till the translation of the Empire to Charlemain; yet afterwards, as the power of the Pope encreased, became Rules Commanded, and the Emperours themselves (to avoyd greater mischiefes, which the people blinded might be led into) were forced to let them passe for Laws.

The same mistake of treating the present Church as the Kingdom of God led to the distinction between civil and canon law. Civil laws were acts of sovereign rulers within their own territories. Canon laws were acts of the Pope within those same territories. At first, these canons were only canons, meaning proposed rules. Christian princes accepted them voluntarily until the transfer of the Empire to Charlemain. But afterward, as the Pope’s power grew, these proposed rules became commands. Even the Emperours were forced to let them count as laws. They did so to avoid greater harm, which the people, blinded by error, might be led into causing.

From hence it is, that in all Dominions, where the Popes Ecclesiasticall power is entirely received, Jewes, Turkes, and Gentiles, are in the Roman Church tolerated in their Religion, as farre forth, as in the exercise and profession thereof they offend not against the civill power: whereas in a Christian, though a stranger, not to be of the Roman Religion, is Capitall; because the Pope pretendeth that all Christians are his Subjects. For otherwise it were as much against the law of Nations, to persecute a Christian stranger, for professing the Religion of his owne country, as an Infidell; or rather more, in as much as they that are not against Christ, are with him.

This is why the Roman Church tolerates Jews, Turks, and Gentiles in all territories that fully accept the Pope’s religious authority. They may practice and profess their religions as long as doing so does not violate civil authority. But for a Christian, even a foreigner, not belonging to the Roman Church is punishable by death. This is because the Pope claims that all Christians are his subjects. Otherwise, persecuting a foreign Christian for professing the religion of his own country would violate the law of nations. It would violate that law as much as persecuting an unbeliever for the same reason. Or rather, it would violate that law even more, since those who are not against Christ are with him.

From the same it is, that in every Christian State there are certaine men, that are exempt, by Ecclesiasticall liberty, from the tributes, and from the tribunals of the Civil State; for so are the secular Clergy, besides Monks and Friars, which in many places, bear so great a proportion to the common people, as if need were, there might be raised out of them alone, an Army, sufficient for any warre the Church militant should imploy them in, against their owne, or other Princes.

For the same reason, in every Christian State, certain men are exempt from civil taxes and courts under Church privileges. These include the secular clergy, as well as Monks and Friars. In many places, these men make up so large a share of the population that they alone could form an army. If needed, this army could fight any war the Church militant employed them in, against their own or other Princes.

A second generall abuse of Scripture, is the turning of Consecration into Conjuration, or Enchantment. To Consecrate, is in Scripture, to Offer, Give, or Dedicate, in pious and decent language and gesture, a man, or any other thing to God, by separating of it from common use; that is to say, to Sanctifie, or make it Gods, and to be used only by those, whom God hath appointed to be his Publike Ministers, (as I have already proved at large in the 35. Chapter;) and thereby to change, not the thing Consecrated, but onely the use of it, from being Profane and common, to be Holy, and peculiar to Gods service. But when by such words, the nature of qualitie of the thing it selfe, is pretended to be changed, it is not Consecration, but either an extraordinary worke of God, or a vaine and impious Conjuration. But seeing (for the frequency of pretending the change of Nature in their Consecrations,) it cannot be esteemed a work extraordinary, it is no other than a Conjuration or Incantation, whereby they would have men to beleeve an alteration of Nature that is not, contrary to the testimony of mans Sight, and of all the rest of his Senses. As for example, when the Priest, in stead of Consecrating Bread and Wine to Gods peculiar service in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, (which is but a separation of it from the common use, to signifie, that is, to put men in mind of their Redemption, by the Passion of Christ, whose body was broken, and blood shed upon the Crosse for our transgressions,) pretends, that by saying of the words of our Saviour, “This is my Body,” and “This is my Blood,” the nature of Bread is no more there, but his very Body; notwithstanding there appeared not to the Sight, or other Sense of the Receiver, any thing that appeareth not before the Consecration. The Egyptian Conjurers, that are said to have turned their Rods to Serpents, and the Water into Bloud, are thought but to have deluded the senses of the Spectators by a false shew of things, yet are esteemed Enchanters: But what should wee have thought of them, if there had appeared in their Rods nothing like a Serpent, and in the Water enchanted, nothing like Bloud, nor like any thing else but Water, but that they had faced down the King, that they were Serpents that looked like Rods, and that it was Bloud that seemed Water? That had been both Enchantment, and Lying. And yet in this daily act of the Priest, they doe the very same, by turning the holy words into the manner of a Charme, which produceth nothing now to the Sense; but they face us down, that it hath turned the Bread into a Man; nay more, into a God; and require men to worship it, as if it were our Saviour himself present God and Man, and thereby to commit most grosse Idolatry. For if it bee enough to excuse it of Idolatry, to say it is no more Bread, but God; why should not the same excuse serve the Egyptians, in case they had the faces to say, the Leeks, and Onyons they worshipped, were not very Leeks, and Onyons, but a Divinity under their Species, or likenesse. The words, “This is my Body,” are aequivalent to these, “This signifies, or represents my Body;” and it is an ordinary figure of Speech: but to take it literally, is an abuse; nor though so taken, can it extend any further, than to the Bread which Christ himself with his own hands Consecrated. For hee never said, that of what Bread soever, any Priest whatsoever, should say, “This is my Body,” or, “This is Christs Body,” the same should presently be transubstantiated. Nor did the Church of Rome ever establish this Transubstantiation, till the time of Innocent the third; which was not above 500. years agoe, when the Power of Popes was at the Highest, and the Darknesse of the time grown so great, as men discerned not the Bread that was given them to eat, especially when it was stamped with the figure of Christ upon the Crosse, as if they would have men beleeve it were Transubstantiated, not onely into the Body of Christ, but also into the Wood of his Crosse, and that they did eat both together in the Sacrament.

A second widespread abuse of Scripture is turning consecration into conjuring or enchantment. In Scripture, to consecrate means to offer, give, or dedicate a person or thing to God. This is done with reverent and proper words and gestures, setting the person or thing apart from ordinary use. In other words, consecration makes the person or thing holy, belonging to God. What is consecrated is to be used only by those God has appointed as his public ministers. I have already proved this at length in Chapter 35. Consecration therefore changes only the use of a thing, not the thing itself. Instead of serving ordinary, secular purposes, the thing is reserved for God’s service. But suppose someone claims that these words change the nature or qualities of the thing itself. That is not consecration, but either an extraordinary act of God or an empty and impious act of conjuring. Yet such changes of nature are claimed so frequently in consecrations that they cannot be considered extraordinary acts. They are therefore nothing but conjuring or incantation. Those performing these rites want people to believe in a change of nature that has not occurred. This contradicts the evidence of human sight and all the other senses. For example, a priest should consecrate bread and wine for God’s special service in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. This simply sets the bread and wine apart from ordinary use to signify our redemption through Christ’s suffering. That is, the bread and wine remind us of that redemption. Christ’s body was broken and his blood shed on the Cross for our sins. But instead, the priest claims that saying our Saviour’s words, “This is my Body,” and “This is my Blood,” changes the bread. He claims that the substance of bread is no longer there, but Christ’s actual body is. Yet the person receiving it sees or senses nothing that was not there before the consecration. The Egyptian conjurers are said to have turned their rods into serpents and water into blood. People think these conjurers merely deceived the spectators’ senses with false appearances, yet still consider them enchanters. But what should we have thought if their rods had shown no resemblance to serpents? What if the enchanted water had looked nothing like blood, or anything but water? Suppose the conjurers had nevertheless brazenly insisted to the King that the rods were serpents that looked like rods. Suppose they had insisted that the water was blood that looked like water. That would have been both enchantment and lying. Yet priests do exactly the same thing in this daily ceremony. They turn the holy words into a kind of magic spell that produces no change perceptible to the senses. But they brazenly insist that the spell has turned bread into a man, indeed, into a God. They demand that people worship the bread as if our Saviour himself were present, both God and man. In doing so, they demand that people commit the grossest idolatry. Suppose saying that the bread is no longer bread, but God, is enough to excuse this worship from idolatry. Why should the same excuse not serve the Egyptians, if they had the nerve to make a similar claim? They could say the leeks and onions they worshipped were not really leeks and onions. Instead, they were a divinity under the appearance or likeness of those vegetables. The words “This is my Body,” mean the same as “This signifies, or represents my Body;”. This is an ordinary figure of speech, but taking the words literally is an abuse. Even taken literally, the words can apply only to the bread Christ himself consecrated with his own hands. Christ never said that any bread would immediately undergo transubstantiation whenever any priest spoke certain words over it. He never made that promise for either “This is my Body,” or “This is Christs Body,”. Nor did the Church of Rome establish transubstantiation until the time of Innocent the third, no more than 500 years ago. The Popes’ power was then at its height. The darkness of the age had grown so great that people could not recognize the bread given them to eat. This was especially true when the bread was stamped with an image of Christ upon the Cross. It was as if the priests wanted people to believe the bread had become not only Christ’s body. They seemed to want people to believe it had also become the wood of his Cross. As if people ate both together in the sacrament.

The like incantation, in stead of Consecration, is used also in the Sacrament of Baptisme: Where the abuse of Gods name in each severall Person, and in the whole Trinity, with the sign of the Crosse at each name, maketh up the Charm: As first, when they make the Holy water, the Priest saith, “I Conjure thee, thou Creature of Water, in the name of God the Father Almighty, and in the name of Jesus Christ his onely Son our Lord, and in vertue of the Holy Ghost, that thou become Conjured water, to drive away all the Powers of the Enemy, and to eradicate, and supplant the Enemy, &c.” And the same in the Benediction of the Salt to be mingled with it; “That thou become Conjured Salt, that all Phantasmes, and Knavery of the Devills fraud may fly and depart from the place wherein thou art sprinkled; and every unclean Spirit bee Conjured by Him that shall come to judge the quicke and the dead.” The same in the Benediction of the Oyle. “That all the Power of the Enemy, all the Host of the Devill, all Assaults and Phantasmes of Satan, may be driven away by this Creature of Oyle.” And for the Infant that is to be Baptized, he is subject to many Charms; First, at the Church dore the Priest blows thrice in the Childs face, and sayes, “Goe out of him unclean Spirit, and give place to the Holy Ghost the Comforter.” As if all Children, till blown on by the Priest were Daemoniaques: Again, before his entrance into the Church, he saith as before, “I Conjure thee, &c. to goe out, and depart from this Servant of God:” And again the same Exorcisme is repeated once more before he be Baptized. These, and some other Incantations, and Consecrations, in administration of the Sacraments of Baptisme, and the Lords Supper; wherein every thing that serveth to those holy men (except the unhallowed Spittle of the Priest) hath some set form of Exorcisme.

Similar incantations replace consecration in the sacrament of Baptism. The charm misuses God’s name, both for each Person separately and for the whole Trinity. The sign of the Cross accompanies each name. First, when making holy water, the priest says, “I conjure you, creature of water, in the name of God the Father Almighty. I conjure you in the name of Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, and through the Holy Ghost’s power. Become conjured water, to drive away all the Enemy’s powers, and to uproot and overthrow the Enemy, etc.” The same happens when the salt to be mixed with the water is blessed: “Become conjured salt. May all phantoms and the Devil’s deceitful tricks flee and leave the place where you are sprinkled. May every unclean spirit be conjured by him who will come to judge the living and the dead.” The same happens when the oil is blessed: “May this creature of oil drive away all the Enemy’s power and all the Devil’s army. May it drive away all Satan’s attacks and phantoms.” The infant to be baptized is also subjected to many charms. First, at the church door, the priest blows three times in the child’s face and says, “Leave him, unclean spirit. Make way for the Holy Ghost, the Comforter.” As if all children were possessed by demons until the priest blew on them. Again, before the child enters the church, the priest says as before, “I conjure you, etc. Leave this servant of God and depart.” The same exorcism is repeated once more before the child is baptized. These and some other incantations and consecrations are used in administering the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Everything these holy men use has some prescribed form of exorcism, except the priest’s unhallowed spit.

Nor are the other rites, as of Marriage, of Extreme Unction, of Visitation of the Sick, of Consecrating Churches, and Church-yards, and the like, exempt from Charms; in as much as there is in them the use of Enchanted Oyle, and Water, with the abuse of the Crosse, and of the holy word of David, “Asperges me Domine Hyssopo,” as things of efficacy to drive away Phantasmes, and Imaginery Spirits.

Nor are the other rites free from charms. These include marriage, Extreme Unction, visiting the sick, consecrating churches and churchyards, and similar ceremonies. For these rites use enchanted oil and water, and misuse the cross and David’s holy words, “Asperges me Domine Hyssopo,” as things with the power to drive away phantoms and imaginary spirits.

Another generall Error, is from the Misinterpretation of the words Eternall Life, Everlasting Death, and the Second Death. For though we read plainly in Holy Scripture, that God created Adam in an estate of Living for Ever, which was conditionall, that is to say, if he disobeyed not his Commandement; which was not essentiall to Humane Nature, but consequent to the vertue of the Tree of Life; whereof hee had liberty to eat, as long as hee had not sinned; and that hee was thrust out of Paradise after he had sinned, lest hee should eate thereof, and live for ever; and that Christs Passion is a Discharge of sin to all that beleeve on him; and by consequence, a restitution of Eternall Life, to all the Faithfull, and to them onely: yet the Doctrine is now, and hath been a long time far otherwise; namely, that every man hath Eternity of Life by Nature, in as much as his Soul is Immortall: So that the flaming Sword at the entrance of Paradise, though it hinder a man from coming to the Tree of Life, hinders him not from the Immortality which God took from him for his Sin; nor makes him to need the sacrificing of Christ, for the recovering of the same; and consequently, not onely the faithfull and righteous, but also the wicked, and the Heathen, shall enjoy Eternall Life, without any Death at all; much lesse a Second, and Everlasting Death. To salve this, it is said, that by Second, and Everlasting Death, is meant a Second, and Everlasting Life, but in Torments; a Figure never used, but in this very Case.

Another common error comes from misinterpreting the terms Eternal Life, Everlasting Death, and the Second Death. Holy Scripture plainly tells us that God created Adam to live forever, on condition that he obeyed God's command. This ability to live forever was not inherent in human nature but came from the power of the Tree of Life. Adam was free to eat from the tree as long as he had not sinned. After he sinned, he was driven out of Paradise to prevent him from eating its fruit and living forever. Scripture also plainly tells us that Christ's suffering and death free all who believe in him from sin. Consequently, Christ restores Eternal Life to all the faithful, and to them alone. Yet the teaching now, and for a long time, has been very different. It claims that everyone naturally has eternal life because their soul is immortal. So the flaming Sword at the entrance to Paradise prevents people from reaching the Tree of Life. But it does not prevent them from having the immortality God took away because of sin. Nor does it make them need Christ's sacrifice to regain that immortality. Consequently, not only the faithful and righteous, but also the wicked and the Heathen, will enjoy Eternal Life. They will suffer no death at all, much less a Second and Everlasting Death. To resolve this difficulty, people say that Second and Everlasting Death means a second and everlasting life, but in torment. Such a figure of speech is never used except in this very case.

All which Doctrine is founded onely on some of the obscurer places of the New Testament; which neverthelesse, the whole scope of the Scripture considered, are cleer enough in a different sense, and unnecessary to the Christian Faith. For supposing that when a man dies, there remaineth nothing of him but his carkasse; cannot God that raised inanimated dust and clay into a living creature by his Word, as easily raise a dead carkasse to life again, and continue him alive for Ever, or make him die again, by another Word? The Soule in Scripture, signifieth alwaies, either the Life, or the Living Creature; and the Body and Soule jointly, the Body Alive. In the fift day of the Creation, God said, Let the water produce Reptile Animae Viventis, the creeping thing that hath in it a Living Soule; the English translate it, “that hath Life:” And again, God created Whales, “& omnem animam viventem;” which in the English is, “every living Creature:” And likewise of Man, God made him of the dust of the earth, and breathed in his face the breath of Life, “& factus est Homo in animam viventem,” that is, “and Man was made a Living Creature;” And after Noah came out of the Arke, God saith, hee will no more smite “omnem animam viventem,” that is “every Living Creature;” And Deut. 12.23. “Eate not the Bloud, for the Bloud is the Soule;” that is “the Life.” From which places, if by Soule were meant a Substance Incorporeall, with an existence separated from the Body, it might as well be inferred of any other living Creature, as of Man. But that the Souls of the Faithfull, are not of their own Nature, but by Gods speciall Grace, to remaine in their bodies, from the Resurrection to all Eternity, I have already I think sufficiently proved out of the Scriptures, in the 38. Chapter. And for the places of the New Testament, where it is said that any man shall be cast Body and Soul into Hell fire, it is no more than Body and Life; that is to say, they shall be cast alive into the perpetuall fire of Gehenna.

All this doctrine rests only on some of the more obscure passages of the New Testament. Yet, when Scripture’s overall meaning is considered, these passages clearly have a different meaning and are unnecessary to Christian faith. Suppose that when a person dies, nothing remains but the corpse. Could not God bring that dead body back to life just as easily by his word? After all, by his word God turned lifeless dust and clay into a living creature. Could he not keep that person alive forever, or make the person die again, by another word? In Scripture, the soul always means either life or a living creature. Body and soul together mean the living body. On the fifth day of Creation, God said, Let the water produce Reptile Animae Viventis, a creeping creature with a living soul. The English translation says, “that has life.” Again, God created whales, “& omnem animam viventem,” translated into English as “every living creature.” Likewise, God made Man from the dust of the earth and breathed the breath of life into his face. The text says, “& factus est Homo in animam viventem,” meaning “and Man became a living creature.” After Noah left the Ark, God said he would no longer strike down “omnem animam viventem,” meaning “every living creature.” And Deut. 12.23 says, “Do not eat the blood, for the blood is the soul,” meaning “the life.” Suppose that, in these passages, soul meant a nonphysical substance existing separately from the body. Then these passages would support that conclusion just as much for any other living creature as for Man. But the souls of the faithful will remain in their bodies from the Resurrection through all eternity. They will do so not by their own nature, but by God’s special grace. I think I have already proved this sufficiently from Scripture in Chapter 38. Some New Testament passages say that a person will be thrown, body and soul, into hellfire. Here, body and soul means nothing more than body and life. In other words, those people will be thrown alive into the everlasting fire of Gehenna.

This window it is, that gives entrance to the Dark Doctrine, first, of Eternall Torments; and afterwards of Purgatory, and consequently of the walking abroad, especially in places Consecrated, Solitary, or Dark, of the Ghosts of men deceased; and thereby to the pretences of Exorcisme and Conjuration of Phantasmes; as also of Invocation of men dead; and to the Doctrine of Indulgences; that is to say, of exemption for a time, or for ever, from the fire of Purgatory, wherein these Incorporeall Substances are pretended by burning to be cleansed, and made fit for Heaven. For men being generally possessed before the time of our Saviour, by contagion of the Daemonology of the Greeks, of an opinion, that the Souls of men were substances distinct from their Bodies, and therefore that when the Body was dead, the Soule of every man, whether godly, or wicked, must subsist somewhere by vertue of its own nature, without acknowledging therein any supernaturall gift of Gods; the Doctors of the Church doubted a long time, what was the place, which they were to abide in, till they should be re-united to their Bodies in the Resurrection; supposing for a while, they lay under the Altars: but afterward the Church of Rome found it more profitable, to build for them this place of Purgatory; which by some other Churches in this later age, has been demolished.

This window lets in the dark doctrine, first of eternal torments, and then of Purgatory. From these doctrines follows the belief that ghosts of the dead wander about, especially in consecrated, solitary, or dark places. This belief then opens the way to claims of exorcism and the summoning of phantoms, and to invoking the dead. It also opens the way to the doctrine of indulgences: exemption, temporarily or forever, from the fire of Purgatory. In this fire, these bodiless substances are supposedly cleansed by burning and made fit for Heaven. For before our Saviour’s time, Greek demonology had spread like a contagion, leading people generally to believe souls existed separately from bodies. They therefore believed that, when the body died, every person’s soul, whether godly or wicked, must continue to exist somewhere. They thought souls continued by their own nature, without recognizing any supernatural gift from God in this continued existence. The teachers of the Church were therefore uncertain for a long time where souls would stay until the Resurrection. At the Resurrection, souls would be reunited with their bodies. For a while, these teachers supposed that souls lay beneath the altars. But afterward, the Church of Rome found it more profitable to build this place called Purgatory for souls. Some other Churches in this later age have demolished it.

Let us now consider, what texts of Scripture seem most to confirm these three generall Errors, I have here touched. As for those which Cardinall Bellarmine hath alledged, for the present Kingdome of God administred by the Pope, (than which there are none that make a better show of proof,) I have already answered them; and made it evident, that the Kingdome of God, instituted by Moses, ended in the election of Saul: After which time the Priest of his own authority never deposed any King. That which the High Priest did to Athaliah, was not done in his own right, but in the right of the young King Joash her Son: But Solomon in his own right deposed the High Priest Abiathar, and set up another in his place. The most difficult place to answer, of all those than can be brought, to prove the Kingdome of God by Christ is already in this world, is alledged, not by Bellarmine, nor any other of the Church of Rome; but by Beza; that will have it to begin from the Resurrection of Christ. But whether hee intend thereby, to entitle the Presbytery to the Supreme Power Ecclesiasticall in the Common-wealth of Geneva, (and consequently to every Presbytery in every other Common-wealth,) or to Princes, and other Civill Soveraignes, I doe not know. For the Presbytery hath challenged the power to Excommunicate their owne Kings, and to bee the Supreme Moderators in Religion, in the places where they have that form of Church government, no lesse then the Pope challengeth it universally.

Let us now consider which passages of Scripture seem most to support the three general errors I have discussed. Cardinal Bellarmine cites passages to support the claim that God’s Kingdom now exists under the Pope’s administration. No other passages offer a stronger appearance of proof. I have already answered Bellarmine’s arguments. I have also shown clearly that the Kingdom of God established by Moses ended with Saul’s election. After that, no priest ever deposed a king on his own authority. The High Priest acted against Athaliah not on his own authority, but on behalf of the young King Joash, her son. But Solomon, on his own authority, deposed the High Priest Abiathar and appointed another in his place. One passage is the hardest to answer among all those offered as proof that Christ’s Kingdom of God already exists in this world. Beza cites this passage, not Bellarmine or anyone else in the Church of Rome. Beza maintains that this Kingdom began with Christ’s Resurrection. But I do not know whom Beza means to grant supreme authority over Church affairs. He may mean the Presbytery in the Commonwealth of Geneva (and consequently every Presbytery in every other Commonwealth). Or he may mean princes and other civil sovereigns. For wherever this form of Church government exists, the Presbytery has claimed the power to excommunicate its own kings. It has also claimed supreme authority over religion in those places, just as the Pope claims that authority everywhere.

That The Kingdome Of Christ Began At The Resurrection The words are (Marke 9.1.) “Verily, I say unto you, that there be some of them that stand here, which shall not tast of death, till they have seene the Kingdome of God come with power.” Which words, if taken grammatically, make it certaine, that either some of those men that stood by Christ at that time, are yet alive; or else, that the Kingdome of God must be now in this present world. And then there is another place more difficult: For when the Apostles after our Saviours Resurrection, and immediately before his Ascension, asked our Saviour, saying, (Acts.1.6.) “Wilt thou at this time restore again the Kingdome to Israel,” he answered them, “It is not for you to know the times and the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power; But ye shall receive power by the comming of the Holy Ghost upon you, and yee shall be my (Martyrs) witnesses both in Jerusalem, & in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the Earth:” Which is as much as to say, My Kingdome is not yet come, nor shall you foreknow when it shall come, for it shall come as a theefe in the night; But I will send you the Holy Ghost, and by him you shall have power to beare witnesse to all the world (by your preaching) of my Resurrection, and the workes I have done, and the doctrine I have taught, that they may beleeve in me, and expect eternall life, at my comming againe: How does this agree with the comming of Christs Kingdome at the Resurrection? And that which St. Paul saies (1 Thessal. 1.9, 10.) “That they turned from Idols, to serve the living and true God, and to waite for his Sonne from Heaven:” Where to waite for his Sonne from Heaven, is to wait for his comming to be King in power; which were not necessary, if this Kingdome had beene then present. Againe, if the Kingdome of God began (as Beza on that place (Mark 9.1.) would have it) at the Resurrection; what reason is there for Christians ever since the Resurrection to say in their prayers, “Let thy Kingdome Come”? It is therefore manifest, that the words of St. Mark are not so to be interpreted. There be some of them that stand here (saith our Saviour) that shall not tast of death till they have seen the Kingdome of God come in power. If then this Kingdome were to come at the Resurrection of Christ, why is it said, “some of them” rather than all? For they all lived till after Christ was risen.

That Christ’s Kingdom Began at the Resurrection The words are (Mark 9:1): “Truly, I tell you, some standing here will not die before seeing God’s Kingdom come with power.” Taken in their grammatical sense, these words make one of two things certain. Either some people standing beside Christ then are still alive, or God’s Kingdom must now exist in this world. Another passage is more difficult. After our Saviour’s Resurrection, immediately before his Ascension, the Apostles asked him (Acts 1:6): “Will you restore the Kingdom to Israel at this time?” He answered them: “It is not for you to know the times and seasons the Father has placed under his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Ghost comes upon you. And you will be my (Martyrs) witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout Judaea, in Samaria, and to the ends of the Earth.” His answer amounts to this: My Kingdom has not yet come, nor will you know beforehand when it will come. For it will come like a thief in the night. But I will send you the Holy Ghost. Through him you will have power to testify to the whole world through your preaching. You will testify to my Resurrection, the works I have done, and the doctrine I have taught. Through your testimony, people may believe in me and expect eternal life when I come again. How does this agree with Christ’s Kingdom coming at the Resurrection? And St. Paul says (1 Thessalonians 1:9, 10): “They turned from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from Heaven.” Waiting for his Son from Heaven means waiting for him to come as King in power. Such waiting would not have been necessary if his Kingdom had already been present. Again, suppose God’s Kingdom began at the Resurrection, as Beza argues in his commentary on that passage (Mark 9:1). Why, then, have Christians continued since the Resurrection to pray, “Let your Kingdom come”? Clearly, then, St. Mark’s words cannot be interpreted that way. Our Saviour says that some standing there “will not die before seeing God’s Kingdom come with power.” If this Kingdom was to come at Christ’s Resurrection, why does he say “some of them” rather than all? For they all lived until after Christ had risen.

But they that require an exact interpretation of this text, let them interpret first the like words of our Saviour to St. Peter concerning St. John, (chap. 21.22.) “If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?” upon which was grounded a report that hee should not dye: Neverthelesse the truth of that report was neither confirmed, as well grounded; nor refuted, as ill grounded on those words; but left as a saying not understood. The same difficulty is also in the place of St. Marke. And if it be lawfull to conjecture at their meaning, by that which immediately followes, both here, and in St. Luke, where the same is againe repeated, it is not unprobable, to say they have relation to the Transfiguration, which is described in the verses immediately following; where it is said, that “After six dayes Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John (not all, but some of his Disciples) and leadeth them up into an high mountaine apart by themselves, and was transfigured before them. And his rayment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no Fuller on earth can white them. And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses, and they were talking with Jesus, &c.” So that they saw Christ in Glory and Majestie, as he is to come; insomuch as “They were sore afraid.” And thus the promise of our Saviour was accomplished by way of Vision: For it was a Vision, as may probably bee inferred out of St. Luke, that reciteth the same story (ch. 9. ve. 28.) and saith, that Peter and they that were with him, were heavy with sleep; But most certainly out of Matth. 17.9. (where the same is again related;) for our Saviour charged them, saying, “Tell no man the Vision untill the Son of man be Risen from the dead.” Howsoever it be, yet there can from thence be taken no argument, to prove that the Kingdome of God taketh beginning till the day of Judgement.

But those who demand an exact interpretation of this passage should first interpret our Saviour’s similar words to St. Peter. Speaking about St. John (chapter 21:22), he said, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?” These words gave rise to a report that St. John would not die. Yet the report was neither confirmed as a sound interpretation of those words nor rejected as an unsound one. Instead, the saying was left unexplained. The same difficulty arises in the passage from St. Marke. If we may guess the meaning from what immediately follows, both here and in St. Luke, one interpretation seems plausible. The words may refer to the Transfiguration, described in the verses immediately following. St. Luke also repeats the words before that account. The account says, “After six days, Jesus takes Peter, James, and John with him (not all, but some of his Disciples). He leads them up a high mountain, apart from the others, and is transfigured before them. His clothes become shining white, whiter than snow, beyond what any cloth cleaner on earth could achieve. And Elias appears to them with Moses, and they are talking with Jesus, and so on.” So the Disciples saw Christ in Glory and Majesty, as he will appear when he comes. Indeed, “They were terrified.” Our Saviour’s promise was thus fulfilled through a Vision. That this was a Vision may probably be inferred from St. Luke’s account of the same event (chapter 9:28). St. Luke says that Peter and his companions were very sleepy. But Matthew 17:9, which again relates the same event, establishes this with certainty. Our Saviour commanded them, saying, “Tell no one about the Vision until the Son of man has risen from the dead.” However this may be, the passage provides no argument that the Kingdom of God begins before the day of Judgement.

As for some other texts, to prove the Popes Power over civill Soveraignes (besides those of Bellarmine;) as that the two Swords that Christ and his Apostles had amongst them, were the Spirituall and the Temporall Sword, which they say St. Peter had given him by Christ: And, that of the two Luminaries, the greater signifies the Pope, and the lesser the King; One might as well inferre out of the first verse of the Bible, that by Heaven is meant the Pope, and by Earth the King: Which is not arguing from Scripture, but a wanton insulting over Princes, that came in fashion after the time the Popes were growne so secure of their greatnesse, as to contemne all Christian Kings; and Treading on the necks of Emperours, to mocke both them, and the Scripture, in the words of the 91. Psalm, “Thou shalt Tread upon the Lion and the Adder, the young Lion and the Dragon thou shalt Trample under thy feet.”

Other passages besides Bellarmine’s are used to prove the Pope’s power over civil sovereigns. One claims that the two swords Christ and his Apostles had represented spiritual and temporal power. Both swords, they say, were given to St. Peter by Christ. Another claims that the greater of the two heavenly lights represents the Pope, and the lesser represents the King. One might just as well conclude from the Bible’s first verse that Heaven means the Pope and Earth the King. This is not reasoning from Scripture, but recklessly insulting princes. Such insults became fashionable after the Popes felt so secure in their greatness that they despised all Christian Kings. They trod on Emperors’ necks, mocking both the Emperors and Scripture with the words of Psalm 91: “You will tread on the lion and the adder, you will trample the young lion and the dragon underfoot.”

As for the rites of Consecration, though they depend for the most part upon the discretion and judgement of the governors of the Church, and not upon the Scriptures; yet those governors are obliged to such direction, as the nature of the action it selfe requireth; as that the ceremonies, words, and gestures, be both decent, and significant, or at least conformable to the action. When Moses consecrated the Tabernacle, the Altar, and the Vessels belonging to them (Exod. 40.) he anointed them with the Oyle which God had commanded to bee made for that purpose; and they were holy; There was nothing Exorcised, to drive away Phantasmes. The same Moses (the civill Soveraigne of Israel) when he consecrated Aaron (the High Priest,) and his Sons, did wash them with Water, (not Exorcised water,) put their Garments upon them, and anointed them with Oyle; and they were sanctified, to minister unto the Lord in the Priests office; which was a simple and decent cleansing, and adorning them, before hee presented them to God, to be his servants. When King Solomon, (the civill Soveraigne of Israel) consecrated the Temple hee had built, (2 Kings 8.) he stood before all the Congregation of Israel; and having blessed them, he gave thanks to God, for putting into the heart of his father, to build it; and for giving to himselfe the grace to accomplish the same; and then prayed unto him, first, to accept that House, though it were not sutable to his infinite Greatnesse; and to hear the prayers of his Servants that should pray therein, or (if they were absent) towards it; and lastly, he offered a sacrifice of Peace-offering, and the House was dedicated. Here was no Procession; the King stood still in his first place; no Exorcised Water; no Asperges Me, nor other impertinent application of words spoken upon another occasion; but a decent, and rationall speech, and such as in making to God a present of his new built House, was most conformable to the occasion. We read not that St. John did Exorcise the Water of Jordan; nor Philip the Water of the river wherein he baptized the Eunuch; nor that any Pastor in the time of the Apostles, did take his spittle, and put it to the nose of the person to be Baptized, and say, “In odorem suavitatis,” that is, “for a sweet savour unto the Lord;” wherein neither the Ceremony of Spittle, for the uncleannesse; nor the application of that Scripture for the levity, can by any authority of man be justified.

Rites of consecration depend mostly on the discretion and judgment of Church leaders, not on Scripture. Yet those leaders must follow the requirements of the act itself. The ceremonies, words, and gestures must be both dignified and meaningful, or at least appropriate to the act. When Moses consecrated the Tabernacle, the Altar, and their vessels (Exod. 40.), he anointed them with oil. God had commanded that this oil be made for that purpose, and the objects became holy. Nothing was exorcised to drive away spirits. Moses, the civil sovereign of Israel, also consecrated Aaron, the High Priest, and his Sons. Moses washed them with water (not exorcised water), dressed them in their garments, and anointed them with oil. They were then sanctified to serve the Lord as priests. This was a simple and dignified cleansing and dressing before Moses presented them to God as his servants. King Solomon, the civil sovereign of Israel, consecrated the Temple he had built (2 Kings 8.). He stood before the whole assembly of Israel and blessed them. Then he thanked God for putting the desire to build the Temple into his father’s heart. Solomon also thanked God for giving him the grace to complete it. Then he prayed that God would accept the House, though it could not match his infinite greatness. Solomon also asked God to hear his servants’ prayers there, or, if they were absent, their prayers toward it. Finally, Solomon offered a peace offering, and the House was dedicated. There was no procession here. The King remained where he had first stood. There was no exorcised water, no Asperges Me, or any other irrelevant use of words spoken on another occasion. Instead, there was a dignified and reasonable speech, entirely appropriate to presenting God with a newly built House. We do not read that St. John exorcised the water of Jordan. Nor do we read that Philip exorcised the river water in which he baptized the Eunuch. Nor do we read that any pastor in the Apostles’ time put his saliva on someone’s nose before baptism. We do not read that any such pastor said, “In odorem suavitatis,” meaning “for a sweet savour unto the Lord;” No human authority can justify either this unclean ceremony involving saliva or this frivolous application of Scripture.

To prove that the Soule separated from the Body liveth eternally, not onely the Soules of the Elect, by especiall grace, and restauration of the Eternall Life which Adam lost by Sinne, and our Saviour restored by the Sacrifice of himself, to the Faithfull, but also the Soules of Reprobates, as a property naturally consequent to the essence of mankind, without other grace of God, but that which is universally given to all mankind; there are divers places, which at the first sight seem sufficiently to serve the turn: but such, as when I compare them with that which I have before (Chapter 38.) alledged out of the 14 of Job, seem to mee much more subject to a divers interpretation, than the words of Job.

Several passages seem at first glance sufficient to prove that the soul lives eternally after separation from the body. This claim concerns not only the souls of the Elect, who receive eternal life through special grace. Adam lost that eternal life through sin, and our Saviour restored it to the faithful by sacrificing himself. The claim also concerns the souls of the Reprobates, whose eternal life supposedly follows naturally from being human. They need no grace from God beyond the grace universally given to all humanity. But I compare these passages with the passage from Job 14 that I cited earlier (Chapter 38). The passages seem to me far more open to alternative interpretations than Job’s words.

And first there are the words of Solomon (Ecclesiastes 12.7.) “Then shall the Dust return to Dust, as it was, and the Spirit shall return to God that gave it.” Which may bear well enough (if there be no other text directly against it) this interpretation, that God onely knows, (but Man not,) what becomes of a mans spirit, when he expireth; and the same Solomon, in the same Book, (Chap. 3. ver. 20,21.) delivereth in the same sentence in the sense I have given it: His words are, “All goe, (man and beast) to the same place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again; who knoweth that the spirit of Man goeth upward, and the spirit of the Beast goeth downward to the earth?” That is, none knows but God; Nor is it an unusuall phrase to say of things we understand not, “God knows what,” and “God knows where.” That of Gen. 5.24. “Enoch walked with God, and he was not; for God took him;” which is expounded Heb. 13.5. “He was translated, that he should not die; and was not found, because God had translated him. For before his Translation, he had this testimony, that he pleased God,” making as much for the Immortality of the Body, as of the Soule, proveth, that this his translation was peculiar to them that please God; not common to them with the wicked; and depending on Grace, not on Nature. But on the contrary, what interpretation shall we give, besides the literall sense of the words of Solomon (Eccles. 3.19.) “That which befalleth the Sons of Men, befalleth Beasts, even one thing befalleth them; as the one dyeth, so doth the other; yea, they have all one breath (one spirit;) so that a Man hath no praeeminence above a Beast, for all is vanity.” By the literall sense, here is no Naturall Immortality of the Soule; nor yet any repugnancy with the Life Eternall, which the Elect shall enjoy by Grace. And (chap. 4. ver.3.) “Better is he that hath not yet been, than both they;” that is, than they that live, or have lived; which, if the Soule of all them that have lived, were Immortall, were a hard saying; for then to have an Immortall Soule, were worse than to have no Soule at all. And againe,(Chapt. 9.5.) “The living know they shall die, but the dead know not any thing;” that is, Naturally, and before the resurrection of the body.

First, there are Solomon’s words (Ecclesiastes 12:7): “Then dust shall return to dust, as it was, and the spirit shall return to God who gave it.” These words may reasonably bear the following interpretation, if no other text directly contradicts it. God alone knows what becomes of a person’s spirit at death. Human beings do not know. Solomon expresses the same thought elsewhere in the same book (3:20, 21), in the sense I have given it. His words are: “All go, both humans and beasts, to the same place. All are made of dust, and all return to dust. Who knows that the human spirit goes upward, and the beast’s spirit goes down into the earth?” That is, no one knows except God. Nor is it unusual to say “God knows what” and “God knows where” about things we do not understand. Genesis 5:24 says: “Enoch walked with God, and he was no more, because God took him.” Hebrews 13:5 explains this passage: “He was taken away so that he would not die. He could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken away, he had received this testimony, that he pleased God.” This passage supports the immortality of the body as much as the immortality of the soul. It proves that being taken away in this way was reserved for those who please God. It was not something they shared with the wicked, and it depended on grace, not nature. But consider Solomon’s words in Ecclesiastes 3:19. What interpretation can we give them other than their literal meaning? “What happens to human beings happens to beasts. The same thing happens to both. As one dies, so does the other. They all have the same breath (the same spirit). So human beings have no advantage over beasts, for all is vanity.” Taken literally, these words leave no room for the soul’s natural immortality. Yet they do not contradict the eternal life that the elect will enjoy through grace. And chapter 4, verse 3 says: “Better than both is the one who has not yet existed.” This means better than those who live or have lived. If the souls of all who have lived were immortal, this would be a difficult claim to accept. For then having an immortal soul would be worse than having no soul at all. And again, chapter 9, verse 5 says: “The living know they will die, but the dead know nothing.” That is, the dead know nothing by nature, before the resurrection of the body.

Another place which seems to make for a Naturall Immortality of the Soule, is that, where our Saviour saith, that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are living: but this is spoken of the promise of God, and of their certitude to rise again, not of a Life then actuall; and in the same sense that God said to Adam, that on the day hee should eate of the forbidden fruit, he should certainly die; from that time forward he was a dead man by sentence; but not by execution, till almost a thousand years after. So Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were alive by promise, then, when Christ spake; but are not actually till the Resurrection. And the History of Dives and Lazarus, make nothing against this, if wee take it (as it is) for a Parable.

Another passage seems to support the soul’s natural immortality: our Saviour says that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are living. But he is speaking of God’s promise and the certainty that they will rise again, not of their actually being alive then. God spoke in the same sense when he told Adam he would certainly die the day he ate the forbidden fruit. From that day onward, Adam was a dead man by sentence. But the sentence was not carried out until almost a thousand years later. So Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were alive by promise when Christ spoke. But they will not actually be alive until the Resurrection. And the story of Dives and Lazarus does not contradict this argument if we take it as a parable, as it is.

But there be other places of the New Testament, where an Immortality seemeth to be directly attributed to the wicked. For it is evident, that they shall all rise to Judgement. And it is said besides in many places, that they shall goe into “Everlasting fire, Everlasting torments, Everlasting punishments; and that the worm of conscience never dyeth;” and all this is comprehended in the word Everlasting Death, which is ordinarily interpreted Everlasting Life In Torments: And yet I can find no where that any man shall live in torments Everlastingly. Also, it seemeth hard, to say, that God who is the Father of Mercies, that doth in Heaven and Earth all that hee will; that hath the hearts of all men in his disposing; that worketh in men both to doe, and to will; and without whose free gift a man hath neither inclination to good, nor repentance of evill, should punish mens transgressions without any end of time, and with all the extremity of torture, that men can imagine, and more. We are therefore to consider, what the meaning is, of Everlasting Fire, and other the like phrases of Scripture.

But other passages in the New Testament seem to attribute immortality directly to the wicked. For clearly, all the wicked will rise to face judgment. Many passages also say that they will enter “everlasting fire, everlasting torments, everlasting punishments, and that the worm of conscience never dies.” All these descriptions are summed up in the phrase everlasting death, usually understood as everlasting life in torment. Yet I can find no passage saying that anyone will live in torment forever. It also seems hard to say that God would punish people’s sins forever with every imaginable extreme of torture, and more. God is the Father of Mercies and does whatever he wills in heaven and on earth. He controls the hearts of all people and works in them both to act and to will. Without his freely given gift, no one has either an inclination toward good or repentance for evil. We must therefore consider what everlasting fire and similar phrases in Scripture mean.

I have shewed already, that the Kingdome of God by Christ beginneth at the day of Judgment: That in that day, the Faithfull shall rise again, with glorious, and spirituall Bodies, and bee his Subjects in that his Kingdome, which shall be Eternall; That they shall neither marry, nor be given in marriage, nor eate and drink, as they did in their naturall bodies; but live for ever in their individuall persons, without the specificall eternity of generation: And that the Reprobates also shall rise again, to receive punishments for their sins: As also, that those of the Elect, which shall be alive in their earthly bodies at that day, shall have their bodies suddenly changed, and made spirituall, and Immortall. But that the bodies of the Reprobate, who make the Kingdome of Satan, shall also be glorious, or spirituall bodies, or that they shall bee as the Angels of God, neither eating, nor drinking, nor engendring; or that their life shall be Eternall in their individuall persons, as the life of every faithfull man is, or as the life of Adam had been if hee had not sinned, there is no place of Scripture to prove it; save onely these places concerning Eternall Torments; which may otherwise be interpreted.

I have already shown that the Kingdom of God through Christ begins on the Day of Judgment. On that day, the faithful will rise again with glorious, spiritual bodies. They will be his subjects in his eternal kingdom. They will neither marry nor be given in marriage, nor eat and drink as they did in their natural bodies. Instead, they will live forever as individuals, without needing to preserve their kind through reproduction. I have also shown that the Reprobates will rise again to receive punishment for their sins. Those of the Elect still alive in their earthly bodies that day will have their bodies suddenly changed. Their bodies will become spiritual and immortal. But the Reprobates, who make up the Kingdom of Satan, are a different matter. No passage of Scripture proves that their bodies will also be glorious or spiritual. Nor does Scripture prove that they will be like the Angels of God, neither eating, drinking, nor reproducing. Nor does Scripture prove that they will live forever as individuals, as every faithful person will. Neither does it prove that they will live as Adam would have lived if he had not sinned. The only exceptions are the passages concerning eternal torment, which may be interpreted differently.

From whence may be inferred, that as the Elect after the Resurrection shall be restored to the estate, wherein Adam was before he had sinned; so the Reprobate shall be in the estate, that Adam, and his posterity were in after the sin committed; saving that God promised a Redeemer to Adam, and such of his seed as should trust in him, and repent; but not to them that should die in their sins, as do the Reprobate.

From this we may infer that, after the Resurrection, the Elect will return to Adam’s state before he sinned. The Reprobate, by contrast, will be in the state of Adam and his descendants after Adam sinned. There is one exception: God promised a Redeemer to Adam and those descendants who would trust in him and repent. But God made no such promise to those who would die in their sins, as the Reprobate do.

These things considered, the texts that mention Eternall Fire, Eternal Torments, or the Word That Never Dieth, contradict not the Doctrine of a Second, and Everlasting Death, in the proper and naturall sense of the word Death. The Fire, or Torments prepared for the wicked in Gehenna, Tophet, or in what place soever, may continue for ever; and there may never want wicked men to be tormented in them; though not every, nor any one Eternally. For the wicked being left in the estate they were in after Adams sin, may at the Resurrection live as they did, marry, and give in marriage, and have grosse and corruptible bodies, as all mankind now have; and consequently may engender perpetually, after the Resurrection, as they did before: For there is no place of Scripture to the contrary. For St. Paul, speaking of the Resurrection (1 Cor. 15.) understandeth it onely of the Resurrection to Life Eternall; and not the Resurrection to Punishment. And of the first, he saith that the Body is “Sown in Corruption, raised in Incorruption; sown in Dishonour, raised in Honour; sown in Weaknesse, raised in Power; sown a Naturall body, raised a Spirituall body:” There is no such thing can be said of the bodies of them that rise to Punishment. The text is Luke 20. Verses 34,35,36. a fertile text. “The Children of this world marry, and are given in marriage; but they that shall be counted worthy to obtaine that world, and the Resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more; for they are equall to the Angells, and are the Children of God, being the Children of the Resurrection:” The Children of this world, that are in the estate which Adam left them in, shall marry, and be given in marriage; that is corrupt, and generate successively; which is an Immortality of the Kind, but not of the Persons of men: They are not worthy to be counted amongst them that shall obtain the next world, and an absolute Resurrection from the dead; but onely a short time, as inmates of that world; and to the end onely to receive condign punishment for their contumacy. The Elect are the onely children of the Resurrection; that is to say the sole heirs of Eternall Life: they only can die no more; it is they that are equall to the Angels, and that are the children of God; and not the Reprobate. To the Reprobate there remaineth after the Resurrection, a Second, and Eternall Death: between which Resurrection, and their Second, and Eternall death, is but a time of Punishment and Torment; and to last by succession of sinners thereunto, as long as the kind of Man by propagation shall endure, which is Eternally.

Given these points, passages mentioning Eternal Fire, Eternal Torments, or the Word That Never Dies do not contradict a second, everlasting death. Here, death means death in its proper, natural sense. The fire or torments prepared for the wicked may last forever, whether in Gehenna, Tophet, or anywhere else. There may always be wicked people to suffer these torments, though no individual need suffer forever. For the wicked remain in the condition humanity was left in after Adam’s sin. At the Resurrection, they may live as they did before, marrying and giving others in marriage. They may have physical, decaying bodies, as all people now have. Consequently, they may reproduce forever after the Resurrection, as they did before. For no passage of Scripture says otherwise. For when St. Paul speaks of the Resurrection (1 Cor. 15.), he means only the resurrection to eternal life. He does not mean the resurrection to punishment. Of the first, he says the body is “sown subject to decay, raised free from decay. Sown in dishonor, raised in honor. Sown in weakness, raised in power. Sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body.” None of these things can be said about the bodies of those raised to punishment. The passage is Luke 20, verses 34, 35, and 36, a passage rich in meaning. “The children of this world marry and are given in marriage. But those judged worthy to reach that world and the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. Nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the Angels. They are children of God, being children of the Resurrection.” The children of this world remain in the condition Adam left them in. They will marry and be given in marriage. That is, they will decay and produce successive generations. This gives immortality to the human race, but not to individual people. They are not worthy to be counted among those who will gain the next world and complete resurrection from death. Instead, they will stay briefly in that world, only to receive the punishment their defiance deserves. The Elect alone are children of the Resurrection, meaning the sole heirs of eternal life. They alone can die no more. They are equal to the Angels and are children of God, unlike the Reprobate. For the Reprobate, a second, eternal death remains after the Resurrection. Between their resurrection and their second, eternal death, there is only a period of punishment and torment. This punishment will continue through successive generations of sinners for as long as humanity continues to reproduce, which is forever.

Upon this Doctrine of the Naturall Eternity of separated Soules, is founded (as I said) the Doctrine of Purgatory. For supposing Eternall Life by Grace onely, there is no Life, but the Life of the Body; and no Immortality till the Resurrection. The texts for Purgatory alledged by Bellarmine out of the Canonicall Scripture of the old Testament, are first, the Fasting of David for Saul and Jonathan, mentioned (2 Kings, 1. 12.); and againe, (2 Sam. 3. 35.) for the death of Abner. This Fasting of David, he saith, was for the obtaining of something for them at Gods hands, after their death; because after he had Fasted to procure the recovery of his owne child, assoone as he know it was dead, he called for meate. Seeing then the Soule hath an existence separate from the Body, and nothing can be obtained by mens Fasting for the Soules that are already either in Heaven, or Hell, it followeth that there be some Soules of dead men, what are neither in Heaven, nor in Hell; and therefore they must bee in some third place, which must be Purgatory. And thus with hard straining, hee has wrested those places to the proofe of a Purgatory; whereas it is manifest, that the ceremonies of Mourning, and Fasting, when they are used for the death of men, whose life was not profitable to the Mourners, they are used for honours sake to their persons; and when tis done for the death of them by whose life the Mourners had benefit, it proceeds from their particular dammage: And so David honoured Saul, and Abner, with his Fasting; and in the death of his owne child, recomforted himselfe, by receiving his ordinary food.

As I said, the doctrine of Purgatory rests on the doctrine that souls naturally exist forever apart from their bodies. For if eternal life comes only through grace, there is no life except bodily life, and no immortality until the Resurrection. Bellarmine cites passages from the canonical books of the Old Testament to support Purgatory. First comes David’s fasting for Saul and Jonathan, mentioned in (2 Kings, 1. 12.). Then comes his fasting over Abner’s death in (2 Sam. 3. 35.). Bellarmine says David fasted to obtain something from God for these men after their deaths. His reason is that David had fasted for his own child’s recovery, but called for food immediately upon learning the child was dead. Given that the soul exists apart from the body, Bellarmine argues, fasting can obtain nothing for souls already in Heaven or Hell. It follows that some dead people’s souls are neither in Heaven nor in Hell. Therefore, these souls must be in a third place, which must be Purgatory. By straining hard, Bellarmine has twisted these passages into proof of Purgatory. Yet the meaning of mourning and fasting for the dead is clear. When the dead person’s life brought no benefit to the mourners, these ceremonies honor the dead person. When the dead person’s life benefited the mourners, their mourning and fasting arise from their personal loss. So David honored Saul and Abner by fasting. But after his own child’s death, David comforted himself by eating his usual food.

In the other places, which he alledgeth out of the old Testament, there is not so much as any shew, or colour of proofe. He brings in every text wherein there is the word Anger, or Fire, or Burning, or Purging, or Clensing, in case any of the Fathers have but in a Sermon rhetorically applied it to the Doctrine of Purgatory, already beleeved. The first verse of Psalme, 37. “O Lord rebuke me not in thy wrath, nor chasten me in thy hot displeasure:” What were this to Purgatory, if Augustine had not applied the Wrath to the fire of Hell, and the Displeasure, to that of Purgatory? And what is it to Purgatory, that of Psalme, 66. 12. “Wee went through fire and water, and thou broughtest us to a moist place;” and other the like texts, (with which the Doctors of those times entended to adorne, or extend their Sermons, or Commentaries) haled to their purposes by force of wit?

The other Old Testament passages he cites do not offer even the appearance of proof. He brings in every passage containing the words Anger, Fire, Burning, Purging, or Cleansing, on one condition. Some Church Father must have used the passage rhetorically in a sermon to support the already accepted doctrine of Purgatory. The first verse of Psalm 37 says, “O Lord, do not rebuke me in your wrath or discipline me in your fierce displeasure.” What would this verse have to do with Purgatory without Augustine’s interpretation? Augustine applied Wrath to the fire of Hell and Displeasure to the fire of Purgatory. And what does Psalm 66:12 have to do with Purgatory: “We went through fire and water, and you brought us to a moist place”? What about the other similar passages, forced into serving their purposes through clever interpretation? The theologians of those times intended these passages to embellish or lengthen their sermons or commentaries.

But he alledgeth other places of the New Testament, that are not so easie to be answered: And first that of Matth. 12.32. “Whosoever speaketh a word against the Sonne of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not bee forgiven him neither in this world, nor in the world to come:” Where he will have Purgatory to be the World to come, wherein some sinnes may be forgiven, which in this World were not forgiven: notwithstanding that it is manifest, there are but three Worlds; one from the Creation to the Flood, which was destroyed by Water, and is called in Scripture the Old World; another from the Flood to the day of Judgement, which is the Present World, and shall bee destroyed by Fire; and the third, which shall bee from the day of Judgement forward, everlasting, which is called the World To Come; and in which it is agreed by all, there shall be no Purgatory; And therefore the World to come, and Purgatory, are inconsistent. But what then can bee the meaning of those our Saviours words? I confesse they are very hardly to bee reconciled with all the Doctrines now unanimously received: Nor is it any shame, to confesse the profoundnesse of the Scripture, to bee too great to be sounded by the shortnesse of humane understanding. Neverthelesse, I may propound such things to the consideration of more learned Divines, as the text it selfe suggesteth. And first, seeing to speake against the Holy Ghost, as being the third Person of the Trinity, is to speake against the Church, in which the Holy Ghost resideth; it seemeth the comparison is made, betweene the Easinesse of our Saviour, in bearing with offences done to him while he was on earth, and the Severity of the Pastors after him, against those which should deny their authority, which was from the Holy Ghost: As if he should say, You that deny my Power; nay you that shall crucifie me, shall be pardoned by mee, as often as you turne unto mee by Repentance: But if you deny the Power of them that teach you hereafter, by vertue of the Holy Ghost, they shall be inexorable, and shall not forgive you, but persecute you in this World, and leave you without absolution, (though you turn to me, unlesse you turn also to them,) to the punishments (as much as lies in them) of the World to come: And so the words may be taken as a Prophecy, or Praediction concerning the times, as they have along been in the Christian Church: Or if this be not the meaning, (for I am not peremptory in such difficult places,) perhaps there may be place left after the Resurrection for the Repentance of some sinners: And there is also another place, that seemeth to agree therewith. For considering the words of St. Paul (1 Cor. 15. 29.) “What shall they doe which are Baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why also are they Baptized for the dead?” a man may probably inferre, as some have done, that in St. Pauls time, there was a custome by receiving Baptisme for the dead, (as men that now beleeve, are Sureties and Undertakers for the Faith of Infants, that are not capable of beleeving,) to undertake for the persons of their deceased friends, that they should be ready to obey, and receive our Saviour for their King, at his coming again; and then the forgivenesse of sins in the world to come, has no need of a Purgatory. But in both these interpretations, there is so much of paradox, that I trust not to them; but propound them to those that are throughly versed in the Scripture, to inquire if there be no clearer place that contradicts them. Onely of thus much, I see evident Scripture, to perswade men, that there is neither the word, nor the thing of Purgatory, neither in this, nor any other text; nor any thing that can prove a necessity of a place for the Soule without the Body; neither for the Soule of Lazarus during the four days he was dead; nor for the Soules of them which the Romane Church pretend to be tormented now in Purgatory. For God, that could give a life to a peece of clay, hath the same power to give life again to a dead man, and renew his inanimate, and rotten Carkasse, into a glorious, spirituall, and immortall Body.

But he cites other passages from the New Testament that are not so easy to answer. The first is Matthew 12:32: “Whoever speaks a word against the Son of man will be forgiven. But whoever speaks against the Holy Ghost will not be forgiven, either in this world or in the world to come.” He takes the world to come to mean Purgatory, where some sins unforgiven in this world may be forgiven. Yet it is clear that there are only three worlds. The first lasted from the Creation to the Flood. It was destroyed by water and is called the Old World in Scripture. The second lasts from the Flood to the day of Judgement. It is the Present World and will be destroyed by fire. The third will last forever, beginning on the day of Judgement, and is called the World to Come. Everyone agrees that there will be no Purgatory in that world. Therefore, the World to Come and Purgatory cannot be the same. But what, then, can these words of our Saviour mean? I admit that they are very hard to reconcile with all the doctrines now unanimously accepted. Nor is it shameful to admit that Scripture's depths exceed the reach of limited human understanding. Nevertheless, I may offer more learned theologians some ideas suggested by the text itself. First, speaking against the Holy Ghost, as the third Person of the Trinity, means speaking against the Church. For the Holy Ghost lives in the Church. The passage therefore seems to draw a comparison between our Saviour's leniency and the severity of the pastors who followed him. He patiently bore offenses against himself while on earth. The pastors would act severely against those who denied their authority, which came from the Holy Ghost. It is as if he said: You who deny my power, even you who will crucify me, will receive my pardon whenever you return to me in repentance. But suppose you deny the power of those who will later teach you through the Holy Ghost. They will be unyielding and will not forgive you. Instead, they will persecute you in this world and leave you without absolution, exposed to punishment in the World to Come. They will do this as far as their power allows, even if you return to me, unless you also return to them. So these words may be understood as a prophecy or prediction about conditions long present in the Christian Church. Or perhaps this is not the meaning, for I make no firm claims about such difficult passages. Perhaps some sinners may still have an opportunity to repent after the Resurrection. Another passage also seems to support this possibility. Consider the words of St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:29: “What will those who are baptized for the dead do, if the dead do not rise at all? Why, then, are they baptized for the dead?” From these words, someone might reasonably infer, as some have, that baptism for the dead was customary in St. Paul's time. Believers today act as sponsors and pledge themselves on behalf of infants who are not yet capable of belief. Similarly, those baptized for their dead friends may have pledged that their friends would be ready when our Saviour returned. Their friends would then obey him and accept him as their King. In that case, forgiveness of sins in the world to come requires no Purgatory. But both interpretations are so unconventional that I do not rely on them. I offer them instead to those thoroughly versed in Scripture. They may investigate whether any clearer passage contradicts these interpretations. On this much alone, I see clear scriptural grounds for persuading people: neither the word Purgatory nor the thing itself appears in this or any other passage. Nor does any passage prove that a place is needed for the soul without the body. No such place is needed for the soul of Lazarus during the four days he was dead. Nor is one needed for the souls that the Roman Church claims are now being tormented in Purgatory. For God could give life to a piece of clay. He has the same power to restore a dead person to life. He can renew that person's lifeless, decaying corpse as a glorious, spiritual, and immortal body.

Another place is that of 1 Cor. 3. where it is said that they which built Stubble, Hay, &c. on the true Foundation, their work shall perish; but “they themselves shall be saved; but as through Fire:” This Fire, he will have to be the Fire of Purgatory. The words, as I have said before, are an allusion to those of Zach. 13. 9. where he saith, “I will bring the third part through the Fire, and refine them as Silver is refined, and will try them as Gold is tryed;” Which is spoken of the comming of the Messiah in Power and Glory; that is, at the day of Judgment, and Conflagration of the present world; wherein the Elect shall not be consumed, but be refined; that is, depose their erroneous Doctrines, and Traditions, and have them as it were sindged off; and shall afterwards call upon the name of the true God. In like manner, the Apostle saith of them, that holding this Foundation Jesus Is The Christ, shall build thereon some other Doctrines that be erroneous, that they shall not be consumed in that fire which reneweth the world, but shall passe through it to Salvation; but so, as to see, and relinquish their former Errours. The Builders, are the Pastors; the Foundation, that Jesus Is The Christ; the Stubble and Hay, False Consequences Drawn From It Through Ignorance, Or Frailty; the Gold, Silver, and pretious Stones, are their True Doctrines; and their Refining or Purging, the Relinquishing Of Their Errors. In all which there is no colour at all for the burning of Incorporeall, that is to say, Impatible Souls.

Another passage is 1 Cor. 3. It says that those who build with stubble, hay, and so on upon the true foundation will lose their work. But “they themselves will be saved, but as though through fire.” He insists that this fire is the fire of Purgatory. As I said before, these words refer to Zach. 13. 9, where God says, “I will bring the third part through the fire. I will refine them as silver is refined, and test them as gold is tested.” This passage speaks of the Messiah’s coming in power and glory. That is, it speaks of Judgment Day, when the present world will burn. In that fire, the elect will not be consumed but refined. They will give up their mistaken doctrines and traditions, as though those errors had been singed off. Afterward, they will call upon the name of the true God. Similarly, the Apostle speaks of those who accept the foundation that Jesus is the Christ, but build some mistaken doctrines upon it. They will not be consumed in the fire that renews the world, but will pass through it to salvation. Yet in doing so, they will recognize and abandon their former errors. The builders are the pastors. The foundation is the belief that Jesus is the Christ. The stubble and hay are false conclusions drawn from that belief through ignorance or weakness. The gold, silver, and precious stones are their true doctrines. Their refining or purging is their abandonment of their errors. None of this offers any basis at all for burning souls that are incorporeal, meaning incapable of being physically affected.

A third place is that of 1 Cor. 15. before mentioned, concerning Baptisme for the Dead: out of which he concludeth, first, that Prayers for the Dead are not unprofitable; and out of that, that there is a Fire of Purgatory: But neither of them rightly. For of many interpretations of the word Baptisme, he approveth this in the first place, that by Baptisme is meant (metaphorically) a Baptisme of Penance; and that men are in this sense Baptized, when they Fast, and Pray, and give Almes: And so Baptisme for the Dead, and Prayer of the Dead, is the same thing. But this is a Metaphor, of which there is no example, neither in the Scripture, nor in any other use of language; and which is also discordant to the harmony, and scope of the Scripture. The word Baptisme is used (Mar. 10. 38. & Luk. 12. 59.) for being Dipped in ones own bloud, as Christ was upon the Cross, and as most of the Apostles were, for giving testimony of him. But it is hard to say, that Prayer, Fasting, and Almes, have any similitude with Dipping. The same is used also Mat. 3. 11. (which seemeth to make somewhat for Purgatory) for a Purging with Fire. But it is evident the Fire and Purging here mentioned, is the same whereof the Prophet Zachary speaketh (chap. 13. v. 9.) “I will bring the third part through the Fire, and will Refine them, &c.” And St. Peter after him (1 Epist. 1. 7.) “That the triall of your Faith, which is much more precious than of Gold that perisheth, though it be tryed with fire, might be found unto praise, and honour, and glory at the Appearing of Jesus Christ;” And St. Paul (1 Cor. 3. 13.) The Fire shall trie every mans work of what sort it is.” But St. Peter, and St. Paul speak of the Fire that shall be at the Second Appearing of Christ; and the Prophet Zachary of the Day of Judgment: And therefore this place of S. Mat. may be interpreted of the same; and then there will be no necessity of the Fire of Purgatory.

A third passage is the one mentioned earlier from 1 Cor. 15, concerning Baptism for the Dead. From this passage, he first concludes that prayers for the dead are not useless. From that conclusion, he argues that there is a fire of Purgatory. But neither conclusion is correct. Among the many interpretations of Baptism, he favors this one: Baptism means, metaphorically, a Baptism of Penance. In this sense, people are baptized when they fast, pray, and give alms. So Baptism for the Dead and prayer for the dead mean the same thing. But there is no example of this metaphor, either in Scripture or anywhere else in language. The metaphor also conflicts with Scripture’s overall consistency and purpose. The word Baptism is used in Mark 10:38 and Luke 12:59 to mean being dipped in one’s own blood. Christ was baptized in this sense on the Cross, as were most of the Apostles for testifying about him. But it is hard to say that prayer, fasting, and almsgiving bear any resemblance to dipping. Baptism is also used in Matt. 3:11 to mean purification by fire. This use seems to offer some support for Purgatory. But the fire and purification mentioned here clearly refer to what the Prophet Zachary describes in chapter 13, verse 9: “I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them, etc.” St. Peter later speaks of the same thing in his first Epistle, 1:7: “So that your tested faith may bring praise, honor, and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ. This testing is far more precious than the testing of gold, which perishes even though it is tested by fire.” St. Paul also says in 1 Cor. 3:13: “The fire will test each person’s work to show what kind it is.” But St. Peter and St. Paul speak of the fire at Christ’s Second Appearing. The Prophet Zachary speaks of the Day of Judgment. Therefore, this passage in St. Matthew may refer to the same fire. If so, there is no need to understand it as referring to the fire of Purgatory.

Another interpretation of Baptisme for the Dead, is that which I have before mentioned, which he preferreth to the second place of probability; And thence also he inferreth the utility of Prayer for the Dead. For if after the Resurrection, such as have not heard of Christ, or not beleeved in him, may be received into Christs Kingdome; it is not in vain, after their death, that their friends should pray for them, till they should be risen. But granting that God, at the prayers of the faithfull, may convert unto him some of those that have not heard Christ preached, and consequently cannot have rejected Christ, and that the charity of men in that point, cannot be blamed; yet this concludeth nothing for Purgatory, because to rise from Death to Life, is one thing; to rise from Purgatory to Life is another; and being a rising from Life to Life, from a Life in torments to a Life in joy.

Another interpretation of Baptism for the Dead is the one I mentioned earlier. He ranks this interpretation as the second most likely. From it, he also concludes that prayer for the dead is useful. For suppose that, after the Resurrection, people who have not heard of Christ or believed in him may enter Christ’s Kingdom. Then their friends do not pray in vain for them after their death, until they rise again. But let us grant that God, in response to believers’ prayers, may turn some people toward him. These are people who have not heard Christ preached and therefore cannot have rejected Christ. Let us also grant that people cannot be blamed for showing charity in this way. Still, these concessions prove nothing about Purgatory, because rising from death to life is one thing. Rising from Purgatory to life is another. The latter is a passage from life to life, from a life of torment to a life of joy.

A fourth place is that of Mat. 5. 25. “Agree with thine Adversary quickly, whilest thou art in the way with him, lest at any time the Adversary deliver thee to the Officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou has paid the uttermost farthing.” In which Allegory, the Offender is the Sinner; both the Adversary and the Judge is God; the Way is this Life; the Prison is the Grave; the Officer, Death; from which, the sinner shall not rise again to life eternall, but to a second Death, till he have paid the utmost farthing, or Christ pay it for him by his Passion, which is a full Ransome for all manner of sin, as well lesser sins, as greater crimes; both being made by the passion of Christ equally veniall.

A fourth passage is Matthew 5:25. “Settle with your adversary quickly while you are on the way with him. Otherwise, your adversary may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.” In this allegory, the offender is the sinner. Both the adversary and the judge are God. The way is this life, the prison is the grave, and the officer is Death. The sinner will not rise from the grave to eternal life, but to a second Death. This remains so until the sinner pays the last penny, or Christ pays it for him through his suffering. Christ’s suffering is a full ransom for every kind of sin, both lesser sins and greater crimes. Through Christ’s suffering, both kinds become equally forgivable.

The fift place, is that of Matth. 5. 22. “Whosoever is angry with his Brother without a cause, shall be guilty in Judgment. And whosoever shall say to his Brother, RACHA, shall be guilty in the Councel. But whosoever shall say, Thou Foole, shall be guilty to hell fire.” From which words he inferreth three sorts of Sins, and three sorts of Punishments; and that none of those sins, but the last, shall be punished with hell fire; and consequently, that after this life, there is punishment of lesser sins in Purgatory. Of which inference, there is no colour in any interpretation that hath yet been given to them: Shall there be a distinction after this life of Courts of Justice, as there was amongst the Jews in our Saviours time, to hear, and determine divers sorts of Crimes; as the Judges, and the Councell? Shall not all Judicature appertain to Christ, and his Apostles? To understand therefore this text, we are not to consider it solitarily, but jointly with the words precedent, and subsequent. Our Saviour in this Chapter interpreteth the Law of Moses; which the Jews thought was then fulfilled, when they had not transgressed the Grammaticall sense thereof, howsoever they had transgressed against the sentence, or meaning of the Legislator. Therefore whereas they thought the Sixth Commandement was not broken, but by Killing a man; nor the Seventh, but when a man lay with a woman, not his wife; our Saviour tells them, the inward Anger of a man against his brother, if it be without just cause, is Homicide: You have heard (saith hee) the Law of Moses, “Thou shalt not Kill,” and that “Whosoever shall Kill, shall be condemned before the Judges,” or before the Session of the Seventy: But I say unto you, to be Angry with ones Brother without cause; or to say unto him Racha, or Foole, is Homicide, and shall be punished at the day of Judgment, and Session of Christ, and his Apostles, with Hell fire: so that those words were not used to distinguish between divers Crimes, and divers Courts of Justice, and divers Punishments; but to taxe the distinction between sin, and sin, which the Jews drew not from the difference of the Will in Obeying God, but from the difference of their Temporall Courts of Justice; and to shew them that he that had the Will to hurt his Brother, though the effect appear but in Reviling, or not at all, shall be cast into hell fire, by the Judges, and by the Session, which shall be the same, not different Courts at the day of Judgment. This Considered, what can be drawn from this text, to maintain Purgatory, I cannot imagine.

The fifth passage is Matthew 5:22. “Whoever is angry with his brother without cause will be guilty before the judges. And whoever says to his brother, RACHA, will be guilty before the Council. But whoever says, You fool, will be liable to hellfire.” From these words, he infers three kinds of sins and three kinds of punishments. He also infers that only the last of these sins will be punished with hellfire. Consequently, he concludes that lesser sins are punished after this life in Purgatory. No interpretation yet offered gives any support to this conclusion. Will there be separate courts of justice after this life, as there were among the Jews in our Saviour’s time? Will there be judges and a Council to hear and decide different kinds of crimes? Will not all authority to judge belong to Christ and his Apostles? To understand this passage, then, we must not read it alone, but alongside the words before and after it. In this chapter, our Saviour interprets the Law of Moses. The Jews thought they had fulfilled the law whenever they had not violated its literal wording. They thought so even when they had violated the lawgiver’s intention or meaning. They therefore thought the Sixth Commandment was broken only by killing someone. They thought the Seventh was broken only when a man slept with a woman who was not his wife. But our Saviour tells them that inward anger against one’s brother, without just cause, is murder. You have heard, he says, the Law of Moses: “You shall not kill.” You have also heard that “Whoever kills will be condemned before the judges,” or before the assembly of the Seventy. But I tell you that being angry with your brother without cause, or calling him Racha or fool, is murder. Such conduct will be punished with hellfire on Judgment Day, before the court of Christ and his Apostles. So these words were not meant to distinguish different crimes, different courts of justice, and different punishments. Instead, they challenged the Jews’ way of distinguishing one sin from another. The Jews based those distinctions on differences between their earthly courts, not on differences in the will to obey God. Our Saviour meant to show what awaits anyone who has the will to hurt his brother. Even if that will shows itself only in insults, or does not show itself at all, he will face hellfire. The judges and the Council will condemn him. On Judgment Day, these will be the same court, not different courts. With this in mind, I cannot imagine what anyone can draw from this passage to support Purgatory.

The sixth place is Luke 16. 9. “Make yee friends of the unrighteous Mammon, that when yee faile, they may receive you into Everlasting Tabernacles.” This he alledges to prove Invocation of Saints departed. But the sense is plain, That we should make friends with our Riches, of the Poore, and thereby obtain their Prayers whilest they live. “He that giveth to the Poore, lendeth to the Lord. “The seventh is Luke 23. 42. “Lord remember me when thou commest into thy Kingdome:” Therefore, saith hee, there is Remission of sins after this life. But the consequence is not good. Our Saviour then forgave him; and at his comming againe in Glory, will remember to raise him againe to Life Eternall.

The sixth passage is Luke 16:9. “Make friends for yourselves with unrighteous Mammon, so that when you fail, they may receive you into everlasting dwellings.” He cites this to prove that we should pray to departed saints. But the meaning is plain. We should use our riches to make friends among the poor and thereby gain their prayers while they live. “Whoever gives to the poor lends to the Lord.” The seventh passage is Luke 23:42. “Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom.” Therefore, he says, sins can be forgiven after this life. But that conclusion does not follow. Our Saviour forgave the man then. And when our Saviour returns in glory, he will remember to raise the man to eternal life.

The Eight is Acts 2. 24. where St. Peter saith of Christ, “that God had raised him up, and loosed the Paines of Death, because it was not possible he should be holden of it;” Which hee interprets to bee a descent of Christ into Purgatory, to loose some Soules there from their torments; whereas it is manifest, that it was Christ that was loosed; it was hee that could not bee holden of Death, or the Grave; and not the Souls in Purgatory. But if that which Beza sayes in his notes on this place be well observed, there is none that will not see, that in stead of Paynes, it should be Bands; and then there is no further cause to seek for Purgatory in this Text.

The eighth is Acts 2:24, where St. Peter says of Christ, “God raised him up and freed him from the pains of death, because death could not hold him.” He interprets this passage as Christ’s descent into Purgatory to free some Souls there from their torments. But clearly, Christ was the one freed. Death or the Grave could not hold Christ, not the Souls in Purgatory. But if we carefully consider what Beza says in his notes on this passage, everyone will see the point. Instead of “pains,” the word should be “bonds.” Then there is no further reason to look for Purgatory in this text.