God grant that wherever I am in error I may be taught better; and God grant that you may know what is error and what truth. Amen!
Zurich, August 20, 1524.
Tur Church: A Reply to Jerome Emser
The word “ecclesia” is derived from the Greek for “calling together,” as everyone well knows. Taken over thence into the Latin, the word is used indifferently in Holy Writ, now for “congregation,” now for “assemblage,” for “definite multitude,” for “people of Israel” both according to the flesh and according to the spirit. In the Old Testament one may see everywhere that when the Hebrew has “kahal” [%mp] or “edah” [my] the Septuagint translation has συναγωγή or ἐκκλησία, while the Latin has “coetus, congregatio, multitudo, universus populus Israel,” or uses the word “ecclesia” itself. If I were to show this at length I should be diverted from my resolution to be brief. Hence it will be sufficient to exhibit a few definite passages by which to make this manifest.
Exod. 12:3: “Speak to all the multitude of the children of Israel.” Here for “multitude” the Hebrew has “edah”; the Greek, συναγωγή. Lev. 8:3: “All the congregation (coetus) of the children of Israel Here the Hebrew has “haedah hakahal” [npn ny], é e, “all the congregation of the ecclesia,” just as the Greek has συναγωγὴν ἐκκλησίας. Num. 20: 4: “the assembly (ecclesia) of the Lord.” Here the Hebrew has kahal”; the Greek, συναγωγή. All these instances have as their one object our seeing that by the word “ecclesia” the whole company, congregation, assemblage, army, multitude, of the people of Israel is meant. Hence it is clear that “ecclesia” is used not only for the pious, holy, and faithful, but also for the impious, wicked, and unfaithful, provided only they were of the seed of Abraham according to the flesh and were intermingled with the pious. How often, indeed, it happened that by their open faithlessness certain ones gave plain proof that, though in body and in the opinion of men they were counted as within the church (ecclesia), yet in fact they were anything but within the church that is without spot and without wrinkle! But of this presently.
In like manner in the New Testament also we see that
[“This entire chapter was copied into Zwingli’s True and False]
[Religion. See p. 178.]
“ecclesia” is used for all those who have named the name of Christ and who walk and live within the company of Christians, even though in reality they are not very faithful; as when Paul says that he persecuted the ecclesia of God, I Cor. 15:9. For he persecuted all who were Christians, i. e., who confessed themselves Christians. But among the Christians there are always evil and unfaithful ones, although we do not recognize such unless they betray themselves by their fruits.
Christ Himself has painted this church in the clearest colors in Mat. 13: 24-30, where, by the parable of one sowing good seed in a field and of an enemy, i. e., the devil, secretly mixing in tares, He means nothing else than that all of us who are called Christians receive the word, or at least wish to appear to have received it, yet none the less we admit the devil’s seed also. Yet God allows the erops that grow from both grain and tares to continue until the day of harvest; nay, He even commands us to let both grow, though He keeps account of the noxious, who are destined to rejection, and of the wholesome, for whom favor is meantime in store (about which there is not now room to speak). We are, I say, to let both grow until the day of harvest.
Of the same purport is the parable of the net [Mt. 13: 47-50] spread to catch fish, in which at the same time good and bad are gathered, live, stay, and are mingled together. But finally the angels come and separate the foul from the sound and fresh.
To the same effect is the parable of the ten virgins [ Mt. 25].
Here we learn that the whole multitude of Christians that counts itself faithful is called one faithful people, one church, and also is not yet the church undefiled; for it has many blemishes, at some of which it is not foreign to Christ to wink. You now see that in the Old Testament as well as in the New the church was composed of the faithful and of those who were unfaithful but pretended faith, and therefore was not yet such that neither wrinkle nor spot attached to it. For in time past all either made or worshipped a molten calf [cf. Exod. 32:2-6]; Judas was with Christ; and with the Apostles were Ananias and Sapphira, and Alexander the coppersmith,
and false brethren, and spies who attempted to betray Christian liberty and to join circumcision and Christ. Yet they did not, wherever such persons lived with the Christians, change the name “church,” used in this manner.
There is, therefore, a second kind of church, which in Ephesians 5: 25-27 Paul describes thus: “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church, and gave himself up for it, that he might sanctify it; which he cleansed by the washing of water through the word, that he might unite it to himself, that it might be a noble church, not having wrinkle or spot.” No one denies that in the Song of Solomon [2: 14, 5:2, 6:8] the one like a dove is the church; but which church? The one, of course, for which Christ gave Himself up, to the end that He might sanctify it to Himself, and which, believing the saying that Christ gave Himself up for us, having been bathed by the washing of water should thereby be so cleansed as to be a glorious and noble church, the spouse of Christ, without any spot or wrinkle. It follows, therefore, that those who believe that Christ so loved us that He gave Himself up for our sanctification are the church of Christ, and free from every spot or wrinkle; for Christ has cleansed them for this purpose, that He might unite them to Himself. Moreover, those whom the Son has freed are free indeed [Jn. 8: 36]; and what God has cleansed, not even Peter is permitted to call unclean [Aets 10:15]. “Therefore, that one beautiful dove, free from every defect, is not some few pontiffs, holy, pious, spotless though they be, but all who firmly believe themselves redeemed by the blood of Christ and as a beautiful spouse united to Him. For the church refuses to be so narrowly restricted as to contain within it only a few members, and those few arrogating this honor to themselves alone; but, spreading over the whole world, it receives members everywhere; and the vaster and wider it is the more beautiful also is it.
But here certain ones object: “Such a church no more exists than does Plato’s Republie, because no one lives without fault, because all have sinned, because we deceive ourselves if we say that we have no sin [I Jn. 1:8]. How, then, is it possible for there to be anywhere a church that has not spot or wrinkle?” These I satisfy in this way: What is without spot
and wrinkle is so not of its own nature but thanks to Christ; for thus Paul says: “He (i. e., Christ) loved the church and gave himself up for it, that he might sanctify it” [Eph. 5: 25-26]. Here you have the source of its holiness, and purity, and freedom from every wrinkle. Christ gave Himself up for it that He might sanctify it. For what are we but a slough of vices? Hence, when we desire to be clean we need some other to purify us, and only Christ can be that other. He is the lamb that taketh away the sin of the world. In His name we shall receive from the Father whatever we have asked. But how shall we implore if we do not believe? Therefore only those who lean on Christ implore and ask of the Father through Christ. But who lean on Christ save those who know that He suffered for us? And how is this known? By faith. It is evident, then, that those who lean on Christ are without spot and wrinkle, for the reason that Christ is without these very things, and He is also ours: for He sanctified us thai we might be able to be joined to Him through Himself. And this is what St. John [I Jn. 2: 1-2] teaches: “And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and he is the propitiation for our sins,” ete. And Paul, in Hebrews, 10: 19-23: “Since, then, brethren, we have boldness and sure confidence for entering into the holy place through the blood of Jesus, by the way which he made for us, a new and living way, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; and since we have a great priest, the same Jesus set over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart and with absolute faith and a firm conviction that our hearts have been sprinkled, ὁ. e., purified, from an evil conscience, and our body washed with pure water: let us hold fast the confession of our hope that it waver not.”
By these testimonies we are clearly taught that through Christ the way to God lies perpetually open, since He who is over the house (7. e., the church of God) has been appointed perpetual priest and propitiation; but only on condition that the confession of faith remain unshaken. They, therefore, are without spot and wrinkle who are in Christ; for only He can remove those defects.
This becomes clearer when we quote the words of Christ
Himself. After He had asked the disciples, Matt. 16: 15, “But who say ye that I am?” and after Peter for them all had replied, “Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God,” Christ declared, among other things: “And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.” Not to wrangle at length over the sense of these words (for the view that makes Christ, and not Peter, the rock once prevailed; and, more than that, faith asserts this, and the words of Christ elsewhere clearly show that this is the true view, as when He makes Himself the vine and us the branches, which bear no fruit except they abide in the vine, Jn. 15: 4-5)—not to linger, I say, over this, we here see clearer than day that the church of Christ, His spouse (for He Himself says my”), has its foundation and strength in the fact that it is His when it confesses that Christ is the Son of the living God. “This the truth itself asserts. May they perish who assert the contrary! That this seems to some a very trivial matter proceeds from the fact that they only pretend to believe that Christ is the Son of the living God, instead of really believing it. For if anyone believes that it is the Son of God whom He sees nailed to the cross for him, how can he fail to weigh the immensity of his sin, so vast, indeed, that only the Son of God can expiate it; and, at the same time, our weakness, nay, impotence, which is so great that in no way is it given us by our own efforts to draw near to God? When, therefore, the Son of God has once freed us from the death of sin and we firmly believe this, we cannot help being transformed by a wonderful metamorphosis into other men. That we see this so rarely accomplished is due to the fact that, according to the word of the prophet, all are hypocrites [cf. Isa. 9: 17]. And hence the Apostles labor so earnestly, to the end that we may put off the old man and put on the new, namely, Christ [cf. Col. 3: 9-10].
It is a great work to believe that Christ, nailed to the cross, is the Son of God. “That this is the work of God, Christ Himself testified, Jn. 6:29: “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” As many, then, as trust in Christ are built upon a rock, which no blasts of winds can shake, no inundating floods wash away. And as many as are built upon this are the church of Christ, for He Himself said
“my.” But His church cannot be impure and wrinkled. Therefore it follows that those who trust in Christ are without spot and without wrinkle, for they summon up all their zeal to the end that they may not fall back into sin, in which beforetime they were dead, Rom. 6:2. But they who do not this utter noble thunderings with their lips, but by their deeds betray Christ, with the result that through them the name of God is in bad repute.
This is the church that cannot err—an attribute which the pontiffs arrogate to themselves with as much falseness as impudence. For this church rests upon the word of God alone, which is so firm and immovable that heaven and earth must pass away sooner than one jot of it [Mt. 5: 18]. On the contrary, the church of the pontiffs rests upon its own word. They run, indeed, as if they had been sent by the Lord, but they speak visions, that is, things pleasing to their own heart [Jer. 23:16]. Hence they spread nothing but darkness before poor wretches’ eyes. For as they have not the light of faith, by which the word is recognized and declared to the brethren, behold how great is the darkness! This Christ has very beautifully suggested, saying, Matt. 6: 23: “If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is the darkness!” That they have not the light of faith is plain from the fact that they do not preach and defend the word of God alone. For faithful is the mind that looks to God alone; and the mind that does this ean hear the word of none but God, its spouse, so far is it from being able to inculcate human absurdities in its preaching to others. All this is made plain by the plain words of Christ in John 10:2, where He teaches that he who enters the sheepfold some other way than by the door is a thief and a robber; and a little later He shows that He is the door. What, then, is entering the Lord’s sheepfold through Christ but putting on Christ [Rom. 13:14]? What but imparting one thing only, the word of Christ, and setting it before those who hunger? For as the Father had sent Him, so also He sent His disciples. Moreover, Christ very sharply combatted the prescriptions and traditions of the pontiffs, and commanded to hear only the word of God. “Therefore those who confidently assert that it is through Him they enter into His fold will do battle against
human traditions and will busily engage in declaring the word of God alone; if they do not do this, they are, judged by the word of God, thieves and robbers. And since they are such, how is it possible that they cannot err—they who have become thieves and robbers just because they have turned aside from the true path?
Behold, so far are assemblies of certain pontiffs from being the church, the spouse of Christ, which cannot err, that if you weigh them well in the balance you will pronounce them thieves and robbers rather than aught else.
Yet there must still be a glorious church, having neither spot nor blemish, against which the battlements and gates of hell cannot prevail [Mt. 16:18]; and which, consequently, cannot lapse or err. Christ pictures it in the beautiful parable of the sheep and the shepherd [Jn. 10: 11-30], teaching there that the sheep hear the voice of the shepherd, if he is a shepherd, and that they follow him; but that a stranger they follow not, because they know not his voice. Is it, then, for the sheep to judge whether he who comes to them is a shepherd or thief, whether the voice is shepherd’s or robber’s? Whence have the sheep such shrewdness as not to blunder? Because of what immediately follows: “I know my sheep, and mine own know me.” And whence have the sheep such discerning knowledge of Christ that they take no one else’s voice for His? From the fact that they are known by God [Gal. 4:9]; from the fact that the Father draws them (for no one comes to Christ save him whom his Father draws [Jn. 6:44]); from the fact that all are taught of God [Jn. 6:45]. “Therefore it follows that only those sheep do not err who know the voice of their shepherd so well that they receive absolutely no other. Here you have the church that cannot err, the one, namely, which knows only the voice of the shepherd, and not of any shepherd whatsoever, but only of the one who enters in by the door, who brings only that which Christ brings, who comes only in the name of the Father as Christ also came, and (to speak briefly) all because there is only one shepherd, although many are wrongly called shepherds. Finally, only that church cannot lapse and err which hears the voice only of its shepherd, God; for only this voice is from God. He
who is of God hears God’s word. And again: “Ye hear not, because ye are not of God” [Jn. 8:47]. Therefore those who hear are God’s sheep, are the church of God, and cannot err; for they follow the word only of God, which can in no wise deceive. But if they follow another word, they are not Christ’s sheep, nor flock, nor church; for they follow a stranger. For it is characteristic of the sheep not even to hear a stranger. For Christ thus continues: “All that came (understand, in their own name’) are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them” [Jn. 10: 8]. Therefore all who have heard thieves and robbers are not sheep of Christ, for Christ’s sheep hear not such. Notice, in passing, that danger threatens the sheep if they hear those who declare their own word.
Now you know what church it is that cannot err: namely, that one alone which rests upon the word of God only—not upon that word whieh Emser supposes that I merely look at, which consists of letters or sentences, but upon that which shines in the heart and recognizes every word, by whomsoever spoken, whether it is the Father and Shepherd’s or not. This light is derived from no other source than the Father of lights [Jas. 1:17], who through His Spirit so teaches His own all things that they judge all things and themselves are judged of no man [I Cor. 2:16]; for by no one can they be misled. Though one swells with eloquence and another oppresses all by unjust rule, yet our man stands like an immovable rock, he cannot be moved. He knows what voice is God’s, and what is a misleader’s. And this is the anointing which I John 2: 20 says teaches us all things. “This, I say, cannot err, for none ean teach it save only God. Do you see how the frigid subtleties of the pontiffs fail when they contend that the meaning of the clerical word must depend upon the judgment of men? Certainly you do, since from the foregoing it is quite evident that nowhere is there faith in the word unless the Father has drawn [Jn. 6: 44], the Spirit has warned, and anointing has taught; and these are one. I confess here that you must be pardoned, Emser, for not accepting this view of the church, since you do not perceive the power of the word. For you will never know
[The true text has “came before me”; but both the Textus Receptus]
[and the Latin Vulgate omit “before me.”]
what church it is that cannot lapse unless you recognize the word of God, which has constituted the church, causes it to trust in Him, and defends it from error, not permitting it to hear any other word. Only pious minds have this knowledge; for it does not depend on human judgment, but is most firmly seated in men’s minds. It is an experience, for all the pious have experienced it. It is not learning, for we see the most learned men ignorant of this most salutary matter. It is for this reason Christ thanked the Father that He hid these things from the wise and revealed them unto babes [Mt. 11: 25]. In vain, then, are we so anxious for certain persons because they refuse to receive the word; but it will not be in vain that with anxiety we pray God to deign to bestow the grace of His Spirit and to draw to a recognition of His word.
Here you see also, Emser, how perfectly consistent are the things which I wrote concerning the church in my Confutation, though you quite uncivilly misrepresent them as very incoherent.
I said that this spouse of Christ, the church, was scattered over the whole world, wherever the faithful are, that Christ’s sheep might not, like the ass tied at Jerusalem [Mt. 21: 2], be forever bound so miserably to Rome, or to Alexanders, Juliuses, Leos, Hadrians. That you might not think this a rash statement, I said that it is veiled from men’s eyes who or how many are within the church of Christ, to the end that it may be seen that the church is not where a few pontiffs meet together, but where men adhere to the word of God and live for Christ; and this is clear and manifest to God alone. So potent an evil is hypocrisy! It is possible, indeed, that not only those who inveigh against the word are outside this church, Christ’s spouse, but also those who assert that they are Christ’s and who do many pious works for their neighbor. For these things often proceed from a very wicked mind; for there are some whom vainglory controls. But no one can deceive God; to Him the reins and hearts are open [cf. Ps. 7:10]. Hence I said that this church is unknown to Tnen, and that it will never come together until the last day, when the Son of God will call all nations to Himself and will contend with them in judg-
[i. e., De canone missae epichiresis.]
ment. There it will be seen of what faith each one has been.
Lastly I spoke of individual churches. From the fact that Christ ordered a diseased sheep to be excluded from the flock, Matt. 18: 17, I made the command apply to them, because the universal church of all the members can never come together here, so that we could tell it what brother refused to come to his senses. And this I said not without example, but I adduced the words, and example as well, of Paul, who commanded the church which was then at Corinth to reject for a while him who was living shamelessly with his stepmother until he should repent of his conduct [I Cor. 5:1,13]. So in Acts 13 there were in the church at Antioch Paul and Barnabas, Niger and others. Thus in Holy Writ mention often is made of individual churches. But all those churches are one church, Christ’s spouse, which the Greeks call the Catholic and we the Universal. This is not a gathering of all the bishops, but a communion of all the saints, 4. e., of all the faithful, as the Fathers added in the creed. For among the ancients the article on the communion of saints was lacking; but subsequently, when those who today still pose as the Catholic Church arrogated this name to themselves, it was added in order to explain the name.
And so it is the office of these churches, as is now clear, to rejeet one who is shamelessly delinquent; and when he comes to his senses and submits to the rule of Christ, to admit again to favor and communion. It is theirs to judge of a shepherd (as was said above), and of doctrine, as in I Cor. 14: 29-32: “And let the prophets speak by two or three, and let the others discern. But if a revelation be made to another sitting by, let the first keep silence. For ye all can prophesy one by one, that all may learn and receive consolation and exhortation. For the spirits of prophets obey prophets.” Here we see clearly that the word of God was once treated in a manner far different from that of today. For not only those who belonged to the order of prophets, but also the people generally, those sitting on the benches, were permitted to speak in the church concerning the word which the Spirit had revealed. If this custom had never died out, so many errors would never have been introduced into the church of Christ, for there are always
persons who through the Heavenly Spirit detect deceitful pretence on the part of one who is teaching, and when this has once been exposed the word is freed from violent distortion. But this detriment comes from the fact that the spirits of the prophets have refused to be subject to the prophets. And this makes manifest that the spirits of the prophets who have refused to obey and heed brethren who were prophesying have not been of God; for the spirits of true prophets obey those who prophesy. But gradually it has come to such a pass that any twaddle uttered by the most perverse babbler from the pulpit, 4. e., in the prophet’s place, is regarded as an oracle; and whoever does not so regard it, but mutters even a syllable against it, is given a most cruel cudgelling.
But at this point someone may object that hereby a church, any church at all, is made the judge of the word, and that I have strenuously denied that any judge may be placed over itI reply that my opinion is the same as before; for always he that is spiritual judgeth all things [I Cor. 2:15]. But yet, what or how he judges must be heard. Whoever hears the Scripture of the celestial word explained in church judges that which he hears; yet what is heard is not the very word which causes us to believe, for if we were rendered faithful by that word which is read and heard, evidently all of us should be faithful. For somewhere or other all of us have either read or heard the word, especially in these days in which all things, even woods and fields, re-echo the gospel; but, on the contrary, we observe that many both hear and see, yet have not faith. It is clear, then, that we are rendered faithful only by that word which the Heavenly Father proclaims in our hearts, by which also He illumines us so that we understand, and draws us so that we follow. Of this enough has been said above. Those who are imbued with this word judge the word which in a discourse sounds forth and strikes our ears; nevertheless, the word of faith, which resides in the minds of the faithful, is judged by no man, but itself judges the external word. The latter also God has ordered to be declared in publie, although faith is not of the external word. “This Christ well explained in the parable of the seed falling on the foot-path, on the rock, amidst thorns, and into good ground [Lk. 8:5-8]. However, the faith-
ful judges not by his own judgment, but by that of the Divine Spirit. That is why Paul said that the spirits of the prophets are obedient to the prophets. For He is not a God of contention and discord, but of unity and peace [I Cor. 14: 33]. Therefore, wherever there is true faith, there also the Heavenly Spirit is recognized as present; and wherever the Heavenly Spirit is, there everybody knows is zeal for unity and peace [ef. Gal. 5:22]. And so it is that every faithful prophet, wherever he is ignorant or in error, willingly receives correction and teaching, even from the meanest person. Nor is there danger of confusion arising in the church; for if it is through God that the church has been gathered together, there is He in the midst, and all who are faithful strive for unity and peace. If any persist in contending in an arrogant or hateful manner, the faithful will have a keen sense for detecting who are speaking under the influence of passion, and who under the influence of love and the Spirit of God; and they will restrain the chatterboxes.
That they may do this the more easily, they have the criterion by which St. John has shown how to try the spirits, whether they are of God [I John 4:2-3]: “Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God.” But what is it to believe that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh? Has this saving power? By no means, unless we believe that He came for us, and that Jesus Christi. e., the Anointed, is a Savior to us, He who is truly King and Savior, Son of God and Son of Man. But if He is Salvation, as He truly is, what does it profit to seek salvation elsewhere? Can this be done without insulting Him who is by nature Savior? That spirit, then, is of God which attributes glory only to Him; on the contrary, that is not of God which attributes to a creature that which is God’s [Rom. 1:25]. But if dispute now arises in the church about the meaning of a word, they who are spiritual at once see which meaning tends most to the glory and will of God, and which the opposite; for he that is of the earth cannot help speaking of the earth [Jn. 3:31]; and he that is of heaven cannot fail to conquer all things with those who are imbued with the same spirit. An
example will make this matter clearer. In these days there has been much discussion about the Keys—how rightly let the pious judge; I will not exhaust that point. Some have adjudged thém to the Roman pontiff, others to any so-called priest; and when they have wished to seem especially pious, they have alleged that sins are forgiven by God only, yet so that the priest pronounces them forgiven. To this end they have misrepresented the judgment of the Levites, whose province it was to pronounce upon leprosy; the case of the ten lepers, though one of them, who was a Samaritan, returned to thank the Savior, not the priest; the releasing of Lazarus from the grave-clothes. To them I will now oppose the authority of God’s word; but first I will wring from the adherents of the Pope, with the assent of their own writers, an admission that the Keys were not given, but only promised, to Peter on the occasion when Christ said, “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven” [Mt. 16:19]. Then I will ask of all when they were delivered; for they must be delivered, Christ said, and what He said must have been done. Some reply: “On the occasion when He said [Jn. 20: 22], Receive ye the Holy Spirit: whose soever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven,” “ete. Others: “When He said, Feed my sheep,” ” Jn. 21:15. Now see how easily they are caught, both when they depart from the right meaning of “Keys” and when they keep to it. In the latter case they are caught thus: If the Keys were delivered to Peter when it was said, “Feed my sheep,” then “to feed” is the function of the Keys. Since, then, no one is so stupid as not to see that “to feed” means “to teach by the word,” it follows that their violent contention that the Keys were first given only to Peter amounts to nothing else than that to Peter above all others the ministry of the word was committed. For if “to have the Keys” is “to feed” (as it surely is), they cannot deny that the only thing enjoined upon Peter was the diligent and faithful ministry of the word. As to the additional claim that the first giving of this injunction was to Peter, this is idle talk, for the ministry of the word had been previously committed to all on the very eve of the resurrection. But others, whose way the Lord wills, say thus: I do not deny that the Keys were delivered on the occasion when Christ
said, “Receive ye the Holy Spirit,” ete., Jn. 20: 22; but that the Keys are some word of a priest, or anything whatsoever but the word of the gospel, I strenuously deny. For what John expresses in the words, “Receive ye the Holy Spirit: whose soever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them; whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained,” Luke told in other words, thus [Lk. 24:45-48]: “Then opened he their mind that they might understand the scriptures; and he said unto them, Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. Ye are witnesses of these things.” Where Luke said, “Then he opened their mind,” John said, “Receive ye the Holy Spirit”; for He is given for this purpose, to open the mind. Mark puts it this way [Mk. 16: 15-16]: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned.” Where Mark said, “Go ye into all the world,” John said, “As the Father sent me, so also I send you,” and Luke, “Should be preached unto all the nations. Ye are my witnesses.” Where Mark said, Preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes” (when the gospel has been preached, of course) “and is baptized shall be saved,” John said, “Whose soever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven.” For only in this way are sins forgiven, if we firmly believe that Christ suffered for us. And although the forgiveness of sins is attributed to the disciples, yet this is only for the reason that the disciples minister the word; for there is not any other name under the sun wherein we must be saved than the name of Jesus Christ [Acts 4: 12]. So Luke expressed this thought thus: “Repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations.” Where Mark said, ^He who believeth not shall be condemned,” John gave this: “Whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” Now, the Apostles retained the sins of the unbelieving when, as they were departing from them, they shook off the dust of their feet, according to the command of the Lord, Lk. 10: 11. And so did Paul, as we read in Acts 18:6. The Keys are, therefore, “to feed.” But “to feed” is to
(declare the gospel. He who believes on it is saved, is set free; for he knows that he has been liberated through the Son. Contrariwise, he who believeth not is condemned, is bound, is given over to the flesh, so that he cannot attain the things of the Spirit.
That this is the sense of three passages from the Gospels is very evident from the fact that they describe independently the appearance of Christ to the disciples and His discourse with them on the very day of the resurrection. This is easily seen by anyone who gives proper attention to the context of the narrative. I will not dwell longer upon this matter, for in my Conclusions I have treated it at length. I will now return to the point from which I digressed. If, I say, dispute arises in the church regarding the Keys, pontiffs claiming them for themselves, and priests for themselves, but the word when weighed in the above manner claiming them for God only, what faithful one in the church will not see clearly that the view here taken is most true and certain, if the Keys are recognized as consisting of the word alone, and of that word only which is believed and resides in the minds of the faithful; and that, consequently, the Apostles do nothing more than carry the Keys, that is, dispense the word? For the two other views smack of the flesh, though the one more than the other. That of the Pope’s adherents so smacks of the flesh that it has circumscribed not only the mind but almost the whole being of all the faithful. So, then, each church judges of the word that is set before it. But how? By the word of faith, which, having through the Spirit been taught within, is in the minds of the faithful. Therefore this judgment is not granted to individual churches in such a manner as to be granted to them singly, for it belongs to the church which is Christ’s spouse. But, inasmuch as this never comes together here, it judges through its parts and members. Thus were they taught in the church at Antioch, at Jerusalem; and Moses was read on each Sabbath, etc. Now you have at considerable length what the Holy Scriptures say about the church, the spouse of Christ, which cannot err. That you may be able to grasp it more correctly and more briefly, I will go back and
[i. e., Auslegen und Gründe der Schlussreden.]
reduce it to certain brief propositions, summarizing, as it were, the preceding discussion.
The church that embraces those also who falsely assume the name of Christ is not the spouse of Christ, and there is no mention of it in the creed.
The church that with firm faith rests upon Christ, the Son of God, is the catholic church, the communion of saints which we confess in the creed, having neither spot nor wrinkle. For Christ has washed it with His blood, that it may be His glorious spouse.
This church—nearly in the words of Peter [I Pet. 4: 3]— walks not for the rest of its life in the way of the Gentiles; for it is on its guard against sin, in which it beforetime lay dead. And since its way is polluted as long as it walks in the flesh, it has need of repentance and of expiation through Christ, its head.
This church is known only to God; for man looks on the outward appearance, but God on the heart [I Sam. 16: 7].
This church eannot err, for it rests upon God’s word alone. It is the Lord’s flock, the sheep whereof hear no one’s voice save its shepherd’s.
The church of the pontiffs, which declares its own word, is the church of man’s enemy, i. e., the devil, who in the silence of the night sows tares [Mt. 13: 24-30]. And the sheep that hear this church are not sheep of Christ; for Christ’s sheep hear not the voice of strangers [Jn. 10: 5]. Behold the infallible judgment of God’s word!
The church that is the spouse of Christ judges both the shepherd and His word. “Therefore the pontiffs are not the lords or judges of the church, but are its ministers; it belongs entirely to the church to cast them out, together with their word, provided it is their own and not Christ’s word that they declare.
Since the church, Christ’s spouse, can never come together here, it yet always has need of the word. Consequently, through its parts and members, ὁ. e., individual churches, it judges both shepherd and external word, but only through the word of God written in the minds of the faithful.
The individual church also rejects the shameless, and
receives again into favor the penitent; but only by virtue of the fact that it is a member of Christ’s church.
The so-called church triumphant has the character and condition of this of ours. Hence I have considered that nothing need be said about it at present.
← 65. Reply to Emser Address to Emser · Contents · 67. Reply to Emser The Intercession of →