So much on the chief and essential point of the Christian religion; for I think this, such as it is, is enough to enable the pious to see where they should fix their hopes and from what keep them away.
[12]. The Keys
Since the subject of the Keys is not only closely related to the Gospel but is really nothing else than the Gospel itself, in no other place than this can it be more suitably treated. In my “Conclusions,” written in German, I said a thing absurd in the judgment of certain persons who think nothing right except what they themselves do. But I do not repent of that view; for it did not originate with me, but was sent from heaven. For I asserted nothing about the Keys that had not been put forth by the Son of God Himself, the Mouth of truth, Knowledge unchangeable. Now let the Pontifical erowd rage; let the creatures of vainglory concoct any device they please. I shall cling to my view so tenaciously that I can no more be torn from it than from God.
False religion is not consistent with itself in explaining either what the Keys are or when they were given. Some think the Keys are the authority given to the priest? by which he can loose and bind according to his own free-will; and therefore they introduce the formula of absolution, as it is called, with the distinet words: “The Lord Jesus Christ absolve you, and I by virtue of the authority from Him which I exercise absolve you, ete.” Others attribute all the power to the word of God, administered by the priest merely as an instrument or organ. And it was well for these that they put forth this view of theirs before the sway of the Roman Pontiff attained its present dimensions. For today they could not say these things with impunity—albeit their view is not correct, as will be clearly shown. And as to when the Keys were given, they are so at variance with each other that it is strange the Roman Pontiff (since he alone, as they dream, has the right to judge the Seriptures) has not pronounced in some bull when they were given, that there might not be such divergence in a matter of such moment—or rather emolument. And he could easily have done so, for he has made a decree that the soul shall not
[His Auslegen und Gründe der Schlussreden, 1523. TFrom early in the thirteenth century the view prevailed that the]
[priest forgives sin in God’s stead. Accordingly, the precative form of abso-]
[lution, “May God (or, the Lord) absolve thee,” was finally superseded by]
[the indicative form, “I absolve thee.”]
die when the body is destroyed. But let us not laugh when piety hears shameless impiety speaking so wantonly. This, then, I once said of the Keys: “The word keys, in the sense it has here, was transferred from keys that unlock to the setting free of the mind, because things that are hidden away and fastened keys open and uncover. In the same way one’s consciousness is closed and unknown to all but one’s self. As, therefore, things that are locked up cannot be got at without the proper key, so one’s consciousness cannot be released and made free unless it be done with the appropriate key.” This would be clear from the mere fact that God alone can release the mind, if we had to treat the matter by argument and illustration. But let us hear what the mouth of the Lord our God says. When, as we read in Matthew 16: 15-19, Christ asked of the disciples who they thought He was, Peter answered in the name of all, as also all had been asked: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Christ said to him: “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah: for flesh and blood hath not “evealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Here the first thing is to examine the way in which they who trot out false and counterfeit keys, wondrously and artfully wrought, defend themselves with a sort of Hercules’ club. It is, indeed, just this: “We see,” they say, “more plainly than day that Peter alone made answer to Christ, and that Christ spoke to Peter alone. Hence the Keys can belong to no one but Peter and him with whom he may have shared them.” We must observe, therefore, that as Christ had asked the question of all the disciples, so also Peter answered in the name of all, although the Evangelist makes no mention here of any other. But John, 6: 67-69, makes mention of all twelve when he records the same reply, thus: “Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Would ye also go away? Simon
[Under Leo X, the Fifth Lateran Council, in December, 1513, con-]
[demned those who deny the immortality and individuality of the soul.]
Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go?” (Notice that he said in the name of all, “shall we go,” not “shall I go.”) “Thou hast the words of eternal life, and we believe and know that thou art that Christ, the Son of God.” Now, if the answer, “Thou art Christ, the Son of God,” deserved the promise of the Keys, as they certainly did, then the Keys were promised to all; for all proclaimed Christ to be the Son of God, as we have now seen here in John 6:69. And it is characteristic of the Evangelists that they sometimes attribute a speech to all the disciples in common, as Luke, 22:35, “Lacked ye anything? And they said, Nothing”; sometimes to one disciple, as here in Matt. 16: 16 and in John 6: 68, where both represent only Peter as replying, but the latter manifestly in the name of all. Again, you will find that one of them attributes to some partieular one what another attributes to the disciplesin general. So Luke 9:13: “But he,” i. e., Christ, “said unto them, Give ye them to eat. And they said, We have no more than five loaves and two fishes. We see here that the words, “We have, etc.,” were said by all; though John 6:9 expressly assigns them to Andrew, the brother of Simon. You will find also, in the third place, that Christ sometimes promised a thing to one or two 4:19, when He calls Peter and Andrew, He says: “Come ye after me, and I will make you fishers of men.” And a little later the Evangelist says of John and James [Matt. 4:21]: “And he called them.” So in Matt. 9: 9: “Follow me”; where He adds nothing about the function of fisher, and yet they were all made fishers of souls. So, too, in our passage no one can doubt that what was said to Peter was said to all, especially as they all had the same idea in regard to Christ, as I have proved from John. Mark 8:30 and Luke 9:21 also contain something that contributes to the matter, the second saying: He charged them, and commanded them to tell this to no man”; and the first saying, “And he charged them that they should tell no man.” He commanded all to keep silence, because, of course, all had confessed Him. From all this it is evident that Christ promised the Keys not to Peter alone, but to all who on being asked recognized that He is the Son of God. For this is the essential thing in preachers, that they
themselves believe what they preach to others. Therefore, since He was about to send them forth to preach, He wanted the point brought out clearly, not in order by asking to learn something He otherwise would not have known (for He searches the hearts and reins), but as an example to us not to lay hands hastily upon any man [cf. I Tim. 5:22]—He wanted the point brought out, I say, whether they held the right view of Him; for it is especially conducive to the advancement of the word, that is, of the Keys, if he who administers the word is no hypocrite. And altogether He did in the promise of the Keys what everybody does in his own affairs. Suppose you have twelve sons and ask them how they are minded towards the commonwealth; and suppose they, delegating or according to custom yielding the office of answering to the eldest, promise to endure all things in its behalf; very likely you will promise Cato (for suppose that is the name of your first born) that for this judicious answer so worthy of your sons you will seek for him a wife who shall be of good character, beautiful, noble, rich, so that he may have the hope of an unenfeebled posterity. Well, do you not propose to do the same for the others? Of course you will secure wives and dowries for all; nor have you set up the first-born as lord of the others. So, neither was Peter by this promise of the Keys set over the others. The right of the first-born, “Be lord over thy brethren” [Gen. 27:29], came to an end in Christ. For He, being the only real Lord and Son, took away all mastery from us, and commanded that he who is elder be as the younger, and the superior as a servant.
Now I think it is firmly established that the Keys are not Peter’s as sole possessor or as lord of them. And if anyone desires more, let him wait till we come to the section, “What the Keys are and when they were given”; then it will be easily manifest that they were given to all alike.
The name of Peter was not bestowed upon Simon for the first time here, but at that first meeting in which his brother Andrew had brought him to Christ, John 1:42. For then Christ said to him: “Thou art Simon the son of John: thou shalt be called Cephas (which is by interpretation Peter).” Hence it is also probable that he was afterwards often called by
that name, as the narrative of the Gospels indicates as it goes on. Especially in Mark 3: 16 can we see that Simon had had the name Peter some time before the event described in Matt. 16:15-19. Therefore the words “Thou art Peter” are an explanation of the reason why He had previously given him that name: as though Christ were saying, “I was right to give thee the name Peter; for thou art Peter. For staunchly and clearly and unwaveringly thou confessest that which has saving power for all. I, too, will build my church upon this rock, not upon thee; for thou art not a rock (petra). God alone is the rock on which every building should be built. There are also two others, called the sons of thunder, not because they are themselves to be proclaimed, nor because they are to thunder out their own word, but because they are to trumpet forth the word of God unwaveringly. So thou, Peter, art not a rock.” For how would the Church have collapsed when he, trembling at the feeble voice of her who kept the door [John 18:17] began to make denial! “You must 6 staunch and firm in preaching the true rock, that all may tind shelter upon it who would weather the force of all gales and storms.” That the divine Apostle so understood the words of Christ he himself bears witness, I Pet. 2: 4-5: “Unto whom”—Christ, that is —‘eoming, a living stone, rejected indeed of men, but with God elect and precious, ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house.” Behold, as Christ is a rock,” you say, “80 are we rocks.” But see in what sense Christ is a rock, and in what sense we are rocks. Christ is the rock upon which the building rises, we are the common stones in the building which has its foundations in Christ. Christ alone, therefore, not Peter nor any creature, is the rock, built upon which the Chureh stands fast against all the vicious fury of all the storms. This would be the place to speak of the Church, but in order to avoid eonfusion I will inquire about the Church after we have found the Keys. One thing had almost escaped me. Hitherto reckless Rome has fought for the primacy of Peter so shamelessly that it has distorted to this end everything that gave any appearance of supporting this contention. Yet, if they had but examined with care and faith the words
[John and James. See Mk. 3: 17.]
of Peter in his first epistle, 5: 1-3, they might have understood how rashly they scorn and corrupt the truth. He says: “The elders among you I exhort, who am a fellow-elder” (he is the colleague of the elders, not their lord or head: where, then, are those who fancy that the Christian Republie must fall to pieces unless some single one be set over all?) “and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed. I exhort you, I say, feed the flock of Christ entrusted to you, being attentive and watchful, not of constraint, but readily and willingly; not from desire for filthy luere, but from kindness and inclination of heart; neither as oppressing with lordship God’s heritage, but as being patterns and examples to the flock.” Behold the grandeur of the Christian shepherd! He feeds the flock with painstaking watchfulness; does not use constraint except so far as the word itself constrains; looks not at profit, but does all things of a ready mind, ὁ. e., with faith and love of God; claims no lordship for himself, but aims at this one thing, to be a blameless example to the flock.
The next thing would be to speak of the gates of hell, on which some have said much that I do not disapprove; but 1 want to hasten on to other things, satisfied with this one observation, that the gates of hell signify the force and power of hell. For cities are usually so built that the towers, moats, ramparts, and all the fortifications about the gates shall be exceedingly strong. Christ adopted this fashion of speech, wishing to teach that all the power of hell, all its fortifications and defences, were demolished by the advent of Christ, and that this same power of hell can do no harm to them that are in Christ Jesus. For the Devil has been led captive in the triumph of Christ and his authority torn from him [ef. Col. 2:14]. The gates of hell, therefore, ἡ. e., its force and power, can do nothing against those that trust in Christ the rock, much less against Christ. “For the prince of this world came and he had nothing in Christ,” John 14:30. For his hope to destroy Him and win the vietory was vain.
There follows, therefore [Mt. 16: 19]: “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Some contend that the keys were delivered here, than which nothing more
foolish can be said; for He says, “1 will give,” not “I give,” nor “Lo, take,” as some of the Popes, falsifying the words, have had engraved on coins. The Keys, therefore, are promised here, not bestowed. Although some of the learned schoolmen openly proclaimed this, it was not laid up against them; but now a man is declared a heretic who asserts this thing which the words so undoubtedly express. “But,” they say, “Christ said it, and what He said must have taken place.” Thank God that they have come to the point of attributing so much to Christ; but I am afraid their wish to seem to attribute it to Him is not genuine, and that it does not come from the heart but from contentiousness, which turns every possible thing into a weapon, even if it wounds itself. For when they say, “Christ said it, and therefore it must have taken place,” they immediately tack on this: “But we nowhere read of the Keys having been bestowed; therefore they were given here.” They are right, then, when they say, “Christ said it, therefore it took place”; but their weapon shall now be turned against themselves. For, “We do not read of their having been given, therefore they were not given except on this occasion,” does not follow. It can easily happen that a man who has been present at some business agreement or contract is absent later when the transfer is made. Does this on that account follow: “He did not see the goods transferred or the money counted out; therefore it was not counted out or else was counted out at the time of the agreement”? So also these persons, not knowing what the Keys are, know not when they were given; for even if they had been present when they were given, they simply would not have understood what it was that was given. They should, therefore, argue thus: “Christ said, ‘I will give them’; therefore they were given.” Then we must see when they were given, instead of arguing thus: “We do not know that they were given anywhere; therefore they were given when they were promised.” But suppose we were so blind as not even to know Christ, much less the Keys? Here those who are so hard pressed on account of the future tense of the verb are at vari-
[Coins of Paul II, Alexander VI, and Julius II bear the legend, “Accipe]
[claves regni caelorum.” Many other issues of papal coins show crossed]
[keys, or Christ delivering the keys to Peter, or Peter with a key or keys.]
ance. Some of them say that the Keys were given to Peter at the time when Christ said, Luke 22:32, “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.” How, I ask, is one to deal with persons of this kind? Christ’s only object here was to teach the self-confident Peter that human powers are such that unless the Lord strengthen them all that we ourselves enjoin will go to pieces. Therefore He says: “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not.” For if He had not prayed, Peter would have fallen from the faith. And this not only would have happened to Peter, but would happen every day unless the Lord with His hand upheld our weakness, so that we should not for even a moment halt in the faith. But is this equivalent to saying, “Receive the promised keys”? Christ is strengthening the wavering faith of Peter, not offering the Keys; for they could not well be handed over then on the eve of the final struggle. But they say, When thou art converted, strengthen they brethren shows clearly that he was set over the others.” That is the way contentiousness goes to work. I am diligently trying to discover when the Keys were given, and you intrude, where you should not, new mention of precedence. But see how out of place this is. Scarcely has the sound of the words died away in which Christ utterly does away with all ambitions aiming at superior place [Lk. 22:24-27], and do you venture to reassert what He had just forbidden? Peter was going to deny Christ more shamelessly than any other. In order that this might not eause him harm by making impossible his restoration to his former position (for there was great pride in these things), He foretold that he should be a prop to the rest, not because he alone remained steadfast in faith, for he did not, but because he was perhaps the only one who, on account of his inconsiderate promptness in promising, needed that Christ should point out the remedy before the disease which nevertheless had to come actually came. In fact, the faith of St. John the Evangelist—in my opinion, that is—as far as we can infer from the Gospel writings, was far and away ahead of Peter’s; For he went in, and he secured for Peter an opportunity of going in [Jn. 18:15-16]. Nor can the fact that he was known to the High Priest weaken my view; for,
when you have gone over to one who is an enemy, to be known is rather a hindrance than a help. It seems clear that John has disguised this out of courtesy, in order not to seem to have claimed greater strength of mind for himself than for Peter. But John was not always eager and forward in displaying his faith, as was Peter, who on that account needed more than he the strong support of the Lord. For to John He entrusted His mother—his dear mother to his most whole-souled disciple. And when both disciples hastened together to the sepulchre, though he was not the first to enter, he yet was the first to see the empty sepulchre and the linen cloths, feeling no fear as to whether the guards had left or not [Jn. 20: 2-8]. But whither am 1 wandering away from the subject? Is “And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethen” equivalent to “Receive the promised Keys”? But others, not having full reliance on this passage, pass by all other passages and fly to the twentyfirst chapter of John, to see if they can anywhere find that the Keys were delivered to Peter alone, for then they think the Papacy wins and holds the field. Since Christ there three times entrusts the sheep and lambs to him to be fed [Jn. 21: 15-17], they proclaim: “Behold, this is the place where we see more elearly than day that the Keys were given to Peter, according to the promise made in Matt. 16: 19.” Here (to say nothing of the inconstancy that caused them to contend a little while ago that the Keys were given in Matt. 16: 19, and now makes them incline to this passage) I feel a lack of fairness in them. For do not those with whom we are dealing incessantly cry, “The Fathers! the Fathers!”? How is it, then, that they do not listen to the Fathers in this place, when all the old writers say that this threefold inquiry of Christs was made to take away the shame of the thrice-repeated denial? I subjoin the words of Augustine, who says this: “A threefold confession is rendered for a threefold denial, that the tongue may serve love not less than it served fear, and impending death not seem to have drawn out more speech than actual life.” But perhaps they refuse to be overcome by one witness, so let them hear another. Cyril, on John, Book 12, Chap. 64, says: “For since Peter, honored along with the others by Christ Himself with the name
[Commentary on John, Tract cxxiii, 5.]
of Apostle, thrice denied Him at the time of the Passion, now a triple confession of love is properly asked of him, that the triple denial may be balanced by a similar triple confession. Thus the sin committed with words is cured with words, ete.” So these writers. But our opponents will perhaps say: “These men’s testimony does not at all prevent the Keys from having been bestowed on this particular occasion; for the reason why Christ demanded the love was that He might be able to place the Keys in a worthy place.” To make plain, therefore, how these devotees of darkness invariably becloud the light and obseure its brightness, I will ask, in the first place (granting for the moment that the Keys were given then): When Christ says, Feed my sheep,” what do you think the Keys are? Here they will no doubt be just as much puzzled as the Jews were when Christ asked them directly: “The baptism of John, was it from God, or from men?” [Mk. 11:30]. If our friends say, “The Keys are feeding, inasmuch as He says, Feed my sheep,’” (for what they say about dominion was demolished above by the words of Peter himself from I Pet. 5: 1-9) —if, then, the Keys are feeding, as they certainly are, how will it afterwards be made clear where the dominion and primacy rest, since the office of feeding with the word was entrusted to the other Apostles equally with Peter, as is plain from John 20:21-23? “Therefore the Keys were not given on this occasion, but before. If, on the other hand, you say that “feeding” is not used here in the sense of “refreshing” with the word, you will again fall into your old-time error of taking away the natural meaning of words and forcing upon them a new one which they cannot possibly bear. This is plain from the fact itself and from Peter’s example—from the fact, because the soul is not fed except with the word of God, as has been shown above, and because man lives “by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” [Mt. 4: 4]; from Peter’s example, because by “feed” he understood “refresh” with the word, as is shown by his insisting so stoutly on the word as to hold with the rest of the Apostles that “it is not fit that we should lay aside the ministry of the word to serve tables,” Acts 6:2. Also, because we nowhere read that Peter inaugurated anybody by his own power or authority, but was rather sent out by other
Apostles, as in Acts 8: 14, where he is sent to Samaria with John to aid Philip. Furthermore, Peter did not understand by “feeding” the making of regulations; for in Acts 15:10 the view which Peter had advocated did not prevail. But why do I talk so long with these chatterers, when I see that all they utter they utter for no other reason than not to seem to get the worst of the argument by keeping silent? This disease was depicted by some heathen writer who said a certain man’s object was just to talk, without caring what he said. Christ was in the habit of dealing with the disciples as faithful instructors do; hence they called Him Master and Lord, John 13: 13. Though an instructor desires to train fitly all who are entrusted to his care, yet he draws out and questions or examines different ones at different times and places, and sometimes teaches a particular one in the hearing of all, that all may learn together. So Christ took Peter, though it was certainly the disciples whom Christ wished to teach two definite things. First, that his triple denial of Him might not tend to Peter’s detriment, He asked him in the presence of his fellow disciples whether he loved Him, that when the disciples heard him doing this they might understand that Peter had regained Christ’s favor and was restored to his place, as has been made plain. The other thing was that all should learn by the example of Peter (for all were sent forth to feed the sheep) that God demanded this one thing in a shepherd, that he should love Him and not himself, assured that he who loves God will faithfully do His work. Thus it is manifest that the Keys were presented neither here nor to Peter alone. However, they were presented at the time when Christ, the life of the soul, having overcome death, rose again, as we see in John 20: 23. We shall here kill two birds with one stone, as the saying is; for first we shall show what the Keys are, and when that has been done it will also appear when they were given. Christ, then, metaphorically called Keys the.” delivering and comforting of the soul; and these take place when under the illumination of the Holy Spirit we understand the mystery of Christ and trust in Him. To loose, therefore, is nothing else than to raise to sure hope the heart that is despairing of salvation; to bind is to abandon the obstinate heart. These things will be explained separately in the sequel.
The Keys, therefore, have a certain mark by which you can easily discover them when you look through the Gospel writings for them. Christ gave a forewarning of this mark in Matt. 16: 19, namely, that we are loosed and bound by them. The first thing of the kind that occurs is in Matt. 18: 17, when Christ orders him who sins with shameless persistence to be cast out like “a heathen man and a publican,” at once adding: “What things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” It seemed to me at one time that the Keys were given here, as I taught in “Archeteles.” But since the question here is only about those who sin with shameless persistence, and who having been cast out are taken back when they have mended their ways, I have been compelled to go further and to see if 1 could not somewhere find such Keys given as fit all cases alike. But before we leave this point (lest anyone should persist in dinning into our ears that the Keys were given here, as I have confessed that I once thought myself), we ought to know that with faith itself as instructor we learn the Keys were not given here. For the question is simply about the casting out of the wicked and taking them back again; while yet the Keys must be of such a character as to set free and comfort all consciences, and not those only who have dared to sin openly with brazen face. And if you ask, “Why, then, does Christ Himself put forth this law, the mark, as it were, by which the Keys are recognized?” I reply that Christ uses it here as a sort of major premise, and then makes a descent, as the logicians call it. For since by the word of God consciences that have not shamelessly prostituted themselves are loosed and bound, much more are those that have prostituted themselves fo be bound, that is, to be avoided; and again, when we see that by the pain of repentance they have been changed, they are to be taken back into the former fellowship. It is, therefore, proved on the authority of Christ that this casting out, avoiding, excommunicating, of shameless sinners can righteously be done among Christians by the power and intent of the law of the Keys, in whose competence it is that unbelievers may be shunned, and just as much those who
[See vol. I, p. 256.]
with their lips profess to be Christians, but deny it in their deeds. Similarly, since it is the function of the Keys to loose the impious from his impiety and admit him into the number of the brethren, the man who sins openly, if he changes his ways, can just as much be taken back again.
From this [Mt. 18: 18] passage on, though one looks closely everywhere, one nowhere finds this mark by which Christ has taught us the Keys are recognized until one comes to John 20:21. There, after Christ had risen from the dead, He greets the disciples with these words: “Peace be unto you” — the same word the angels had uttered at His birth, “And on earth peace”—that it may be plain that He is the peace and refreshment of soul. And this we can understand from the fact that the disciples “were glad” when they saw the Man [Jn. 20:20]. That the words may be more firmly fixed in their minds, He repeats them, saying, “Peace be unto you: as the Father hath sent me, even so send I you.” Notice that what Mark said [16:15]: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation,” John thus expresses: “As the Father hath sent me.” Now, He had sent Him to be the salvation of all nations even unto the corners of the earth. So now He sends the disciples to proclaim that this salvation is everywhere at hand. For, to remind you of this meanwhile, the same event on the same day, is described here in John 20:21, in Mark 16:15, and in Luke 24:47; which some persons have not seen, thinking that as these passages are read in the churches at different times the events took place at the seasons at which they are read, especially what I have quoted from Mark. If you compare the three accounts, what I say will easily be manifest, though one has certain special features which you do not find in another; for Christ did many things, nay, endless things that are not written in this book [ecf. Jn. 20:30]. And John took particular care to leave out nothing in the essentials of the gospel, and to add by diligent gleaning what the others had passed over.
But that the slow of comprehension may be fully satisfied, I will make a few comparisons.
It is perfectly clear in itself that the event given in Luke [24: 36-49] took place on the very day of the Resurrection. For
of the two who were going to Emmaus he says [24: 13-35] that they set out on the very day on which the women had come and reported that they had seen the vision of angels. And afterwards, when they were returning to Jerusalem, he says they left Emmaus in the same hour in which Christ had walked with them and they had recognized Him in the breaking of bread. And when they had reached the city, they found, he says, the Eleven, who told them that Christ had risen and had appeared to Simon; and the two in turn told also how He had appeared to them. All these things are most clearly seen to have happened on the very day of the Resurrection. “There follows in Luke [24:36]: “And as they thus spoke” (notice how clearly the words designate the time), “as they thus spoke,” he says, “Jesus stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.” John does not mention the episode of the two going to Emmaus, but plaintly indicates that the event took place on the very day of the Resurrection, saying: “When therefore it was evening on that day”—the day, namely, on which He had appeared to the Magdalene, and she had told the news to the disciples [Jn. 20: 14-18], when those who afterwards went to Emmaus had not yet started; for when Christ was talking with them they told Him [Lk. 24: 22] they had been frightened by the report of the women who said they had seen a vision of angels, and these women could not have been other than the Magdalene and her companions, whose tale Mark [16: 9-14] describes vividly, at the same time mentioning those who were going to Emmaus, and telling how, when they returned and said that Christ had appeared to them, some did not believe them. “Postea” (afterward) Mark says, where our version has “novissime” (finally), as if that was the last appearance of Christ, though the Greek is ὕστερον, which cannot possibly mean “novissime,” but ‘“postea”’—he says, then, “afterward,” when the men returning from Emmaus had told what had happened to them, as the Eleven sat at meat on the very day of the Resurrection. For Luke [24:36] says, “As they thus spoke,” and John [20: 19] “When it was evening.” Clearly it must have been quite dusky, for those who went to Emmaus had seen the day decline [Lk.‘24: 29].
[i. e., the event related in Luke 24: 36-49.]
Next I will compare John’s words [20:20], “The disciples were glad, when they saw the Lord,” with Luke’s [24: 37-38], “But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they beheld a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and wherefore do questionings arise in your hearts?” John describes what took place after this that Luke describes, for Luke thought the behavior of the disciples when they first saw the Lord ought not to be passed over in silence. Therefore he says that at first they were troubled and began to question whether perhaps it was not the trick of some spirit that they saw. Christ knowing this upbraided them. See also Mark’s words [16: 14]: “He upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them that had seen him after he was risen.” And He said [Lk. 24:38] (I return to Luke): “Why are ye troubled? And why do ye suffer your hearts to be filled with absurd questionings?” Then Luke adds: See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as yesee me having. And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. And while they still disbelieved and wondered for joy, he said, etc.” Here is where John begins, saying: “And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side.” Luke had said, “his hands and his feet.” John added “side” also, for Jesus certainly showed all the wounds He had received on the cross, and Luke had said nothing about the side. John continues: “The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord,” clearly explaining what Luke had said rather obscurely with ^wondering for joy,” namely, that, although they had been troubled in the beginning, yet as their recognition grew through his displaying his wounds their stupefaction changed to joy.
We will eontent ourselves with these notes, from which skeleton, asit were, itis clear that all three of these Evangelists are describing the same event of thesame day. Therefore, what John says [20: 21], As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you,” Mark expands in the words [16:15], “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation,” while Luke has [24:47], It behooved that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations.” For this,
finally, is the gospel, as has been shown at length above. There follows in John: “When he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit.” This Luke explained more fully, saying: “Then opened he their mind, that they might understand the Scriptures; and he said unto them, Thus and thus” (these words are to be understood deictically) “it is written. And thus it behooved that Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead; and that repentance should.. be preached,” ete. And John, as usual, seeing that Luke had told with great fulness how and what Christ had taught the disciples through the Holy Spirit, contented himself with saying: “He breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit.” But what else is it to open the mind or understanding than to inspire with the Holy Spirit? Moreover, they that were to spread Christ through all the world receive also the Spirit of Christ. For as He had been sent, so also are they sent [Jn. 20:21]; therefore they had to have the same spirit, being engaged in the same work.
Now we are very near the mark by which we shall discover the Keys. For having inaugurated the disciples into the apostleship, and having given them His spirit, by which we might know forever that those who undertake to preach the gospel will labor in vain if they burn not with the Spirit of God, He presently discloses what they must bring to men to make them free, and says in Mark [16:15-16]: “Preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned.” It is not necessary to remind you that “believe” is used in this place and in many other places for “trust.” Here, then, are the Keys which Christ committed to the Apostles, by which they unlocked the gates of heaven—they preached the gospel. They that believed the gospel when it was preached felt the deliverance and comforting of their consciences. For the gospel, as 1 think has been said sufficiently, teaches us to embrace not only grace but a new life. Furthermore, one does not begin a new life unless one is disgusted with one’s previous life. Hence Luke says [25:45-49] that Christ opened the minds of the Apostles, that they might understand from the Scriptures “that it behooved that repentance and remission of
sins should be preached in his name”—that is, by His command and power—“unto all the nations.” Since, therefore, even by the teaching of the Popes it is admitted that the remission of sins is brought about by the power of the Keys, it is certain that the Keys are what sets free the captive conscience. But as to what the Keys are, in their teaching we are farther from the truth than heaven is from the earth. For the Papal-ists say they are the authority conferred upon man by God; but Christ says that they are the faith by which the gospel is believed, that is, by which we trust in the righteousness and merit of the Son of God, and utterly deny and cast ourselves aside. For from the teaching of Christ we find that “it behooved that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name.” Here then are the Keys which make a man known to himself, so that knowing himself he despairs of salvation, and after that has happened sees that all his salvation is placed in Christ, and knows this salvation to be so sure and so thoroughly his own that he has not the slightest doubt that through Him he has been made truly a son of God. Will not the conscience then straightway leap for joy? Will it not feel itself freed, exhilarated, sustained? The word of God, then, by which we learn to know ourselves and are taught to trust in God, is the Keys by which the ministers of the word set us free; for they who, taught by it, put all their trust in God are henceforth free indeed. That, therefore, which Mark said, “Preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth, ete.,” John, in order to show what were the Keys once promised (for none of the Evangelists before him had expressly shown this mark), expresses in the words, Receive ye the Holy Spirit: whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and, on the other hand, whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” Thus far I have spoken only of the remission of sins; but how the Apostles should retain sins is a matter of wonder, since Peter is taught [Mt. 18:22] to pardon the offender seventy times seven times. I find only two ways in which the Apostles retained or bound sin. One in I Cor. 5: 4-5, but this has to do with the excommunication which is effected by the power of the word, of which I spoke a little while ago. The other Christ has made known in Matt. 10:14: “Whoso-
ever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, as ye go forth from that man or that city, shake off the dust from your feet.” It appears here that to bind is simply to leave one to one’s error. In this way Paul bound, Acts 18: 6, shook off the dust against the Jews when they rejected the word, and went unto the Gentiles. So likewise Acts 13:46. To bind by the word is, therefore, nothing else than to abandon, according to Christ’s command, those who do not receive the word, and to have nothing to do with scoffers. For the divine vengeance will be milder to Sodom and her companion cities than to those who, when the light has been offered them, love the darkness better than the light. The followers of the Popes still ery out that the Keys were delivered to the Apostles out and out, and that therefore the word cannot be the Keys; for the word is not of the Apostles but of God, and what the word does, or God through His Spirit, cannot be bestowed upon man. Moreover, since the Keys were delivered to the Apostles, clearly it is not the word that was delivered; for the word is not of the Apostles, but of God. 1 reply that throughout Holy Writ there are endless things that God has bestowed upon us which are so far from being ours except when communicated by His grace that they cannot possibly be in man’s power. As when in Matt. 10: 8 He says: “Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons.” Yet these things are as little in the Apostles’ power as it was in the King of Israel’s power to deliver Naaman from leprosy, II Kings 5:7. And so, a little later on, when Jesus says [Mt. 10:14]: “Whosoever shall not hear your words,” ete. Yet they could not have committed a more serious sin than to have bestowed their own words upon men; and blessed is he that heareth not the word of a man, for “in vain do they worship me,” he says, Matt. 15: 9, “teaching the commandments and doctrines of men.” From these and countless other passages, I say, we see plainly that the most kind Father makes things ours which cannot be anyone else’s at all than His; but it is not strange that He so bestows them who gave us His Son to be ours. How shall He not with Him give us all things [cf. Rom. 8:32]? Now I think the real Keys have been pretty well cleared of the rust of human traditions, so that anyone can see that they are nothing else than the administer-
ing of the gospel, and the withdrawal of it where there is obstinate unbelief. Let them snarl: “Would you catch a weasel asleep, or propose to teach your masters?” I will not turn a hair, for He on whose word I rest is more ancient than the oldest and wiser than the wise men of today. We know that though the human conscience can be set at rest by the faith with which we cling to God alone, yet it cannot be set at rest by human deliverance or absolution, as some have proclaimed. We are taught by the word, administered, ‘tis true, by man, but we are not made sure by the word unless the Spirit of the Lord soften our hearts so that the word can be sown there and our hope planted in God. It is, therefore, established that it is by faith, and not by absolution, as they call the made-up formula of Papal authority, nor by any sacrament whatever, that the inward man can be made secure. For faith alone knows how much trust it has in God through Christ. Away, therefore, and away quickly with these counterfeit Keys of the Popes from the Church of the faithful! For by means of them nothing is sought but dominion over the conscience, and when this has been acquired it opens the way for greed to the treasures of all. When it has opened these, it takes all it wants, in order to have the wherewithal to minister to lust. Hence a carnival of every kind of crime so unrestrained and so widespread that no tongue, no pen, can describe what a quantity of evils of every kind have been let out by these Keys. You committed adultery and then allowed your strong box or wallet to be entered with these Keys; your adultery was nothing. You crushed the poor man with usury, and then gave something to the Keys; your gains were holier than a heritage from one’s mother. What but just before was usury, extortionate interest, and such an obstacle that you could not possibly be saved; what you had called poisoning, treachery, robbery, perjury—all this the power of the Keys wiped away; but hardly unless you first laid out a tidy sum of money. Nay, the strange thing was that the more washing away they did, the more efficacious for washing away they became, if only money was poured out unstintedly. “Who, by immortal God, is so blind as not to see that this folly could not have grown so rampant without the wrath of God? But, thanks be to God, who
← 44. Commentary on True and False Religion · Contents · 46. Commentary on True and False Religion →