Chapter XXI.—Of the Difference Between Discipline and Power, and of the Power of the Keys.

If the apostles understood these (figurative meanings of the Law) better, of course they were more careful (with regard to them than even apostolic men).  But I will descend even to this point of contest now, making a separation between the doctrine of apostles and their power.  Discipline governs a man, power sets a seal upon him; apart from the fact that power is the Spirit, but the Spirit is God.  What, moreover, used (the Spirit) to teach?  That there must be no communicating with the works of darkness.265    Eph. v. 11.  See ch. xviii. above.  Observe what He bids.  Who, moreover, was able to forgive sins?  This is His alone prerogative:  for “who remitteth sins but God alone?”266    Mark ii. 7; Luke v. 21. and, of course, (who but He can remit) mortal sins, such as have been committed against Himself,267    Comp. Ps. li. 4 (in LXX. Ps. l. 6). and against His temple?  For, as far as you are concerned, such as are chargeable with offence against you personally, you are commanded, in the person of Peter, to forgive even seventy times sevenfold.268    Matt. xviii. 22.  And so, if it were agreed that even the blessed apostles had granted any such indulgence (to any crime) the pardon of which (comes) from God, not from man, it would be competent (for them) to have done so, not in the exercise of discipline, but of power.  For they both raised the dead,269    Comp. Acts ix. 36–43; xx. 9–12. which God alone (can do), and restored the debilitated to their integrity,270    Comp. Acts iii. 1–11; v. 13–16. which none but Christ (can do); nay, they inflicted plagues too, which Christ would not do.  For it did not beseem Him to be severe who had come to suffer.  Smitten were both Ananias271    Acts v. 1–6. and Elymas272    Acts xiii. 6–12.—Ananias with death, Elymas with blindness—in order that by this very fact it might be proved that Christ had had the power of doing even such (miracles).  So, too, had the prophets (of old) granted to the repentant the pardon of murder, and therewith of adultery, inasmuch as they gave, at the same time, manifest proofs of severity.273    Comp. 2 Sam. xii. 1–14, etc.  Exhibit therefore even now to me,274    Kaye suggests “apostolica et prophetica”—“apostolic and prophetic evidences;” which is very probable. apostolic sir, prophetic evidences, that I may recognise your divine virtue, and vindicate to yourself the power of remitting such sins!  If, however, you have had the functions of discipline alone allotted you, and (the duty) of presiding not imperially, but ministerially;275    Comp. 1 Pet. v. 1–4. who or how great are you, that you should grant indulgence, who, by exhibiting neither the prophetic nor the apostolic character, lack that virtue whose property it is to indulge?

“But,” you say, “the Church has the power of forgiving sins.”  This I acknowledge and adjudge more (than you; I) who have the Paraclete Himself in the persons of the new prophets, saying, “The Church has the power to forgive sins; but I will not do it, lest they commit others withal.”  “What if a pseudo-prophetic spirit has made that declaration?”  Nay, but it would have been more the part of a subverter on the one hand to commend himself on the score of clemency, and on the other to influence all others to sin.  Or if, again, (the pseudo-prophetic spirit) has been eager to affect this (sentiment) in accordance with “the Spirit of truth,”276    Comp. John xv. 26. it follows that “the Spirit of truth” has indeed the power of indulgently granting pardon to fornicators, but wills not to do it if it involve evil to the majority.

I now inquire into your opinion, (to see) from what source you usurp this right to “the Church.”

If, because the Lord has said to Peter, “Upon this rock will I build My Church,”277    Matt. xvi. 18. “to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;”278    Matt. xvi. 19 ad init., incorrectly. or, “Whatsoever thou shalt have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,”279    Matt. xvi. 19. you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter?  “On thee,” He says, “will I build My Church;” and, “I will give to thee the keys,” not to the Church; and, “Whatsoever thou shalt have loosed or bound,” not what they shall have loosed or bound.  For so withal the result teaches.  In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key; you see what (key):  “Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears:  Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you,” and so forth.280    Acts ii. 22 et seqq.  (Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ’s baptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which (kingdom) are “loosed” the sins that were beforetime “bound;” and those which have not been “loosed” are “bound,” in accordance with true salvation; and Ananias he “bound” with the bond of death, and the weak in his feet he “absolved” from his defect of health.  Moreover, in that dispute about the observance or non-observance of the Law, Peter was the first of all to be endued with the Spirit, and, after making preface touching the calling of the nations, to say, “And now why are ye tempting the Lord, concerning the imposition upon the brethren of a yoke which neither we nor our fathers were able to support?  But however, through the grace of Jesus we believe that we shall be saved in the same way as they.”281    See Acts xv. 7–11.  This sentence both “loosed” those parts of the law which were abandoned, and “bound” those which were reserved.  Hence the power of loosing and of binding committed to Peter had nothing to do with the capital sins of believers; and if the Lord had given him a precept that he must grant pardon to a brother sinning against him even “seventy times sevenfold,” of course He would have commanded him to “bind”—that is, to “retain”282    Comp. John xx. 23.—nothing subsequently, unless perchance such (sins) as one may have committed against the Lord, not against a brother.  For the forgiveness of (sins) committed in the case of a man is a prejudgment against the remission of sins against God.

What, now, (has this to do) with the Church, and your (church), indeed, Psychic?  For, in accordance with the person of Peter, it is to spiritual men that this power will correspondently appertain, either to an apostle or else to a prophet.  For the very Church itself is, properly and principally, the Spirit Himself, in whom is the Trinity of the One Divinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.283    See de Or., c. ii.  (The Spirit) combines that Church which the Lord has made to consist in “three.”  And thus, from that time forward,284    See Matt. xviii. 20. every number (of persons) who may have combined together into this faith is accounted “a Church,” from the Author and Consecrator (of the Church).  And accordingly “the Church,” it is true, will forgive sins:  but (it will be) the Church of the Spirit, by means of a spiritual man; not the Church which consists of a number of bishops.  For the right and arbitrament is the Lord’s, not the servant’s; God’s Himself, not the priest’s.

CAPUT XXI.

Haec si Apostoli magis norant, magis utique curabant. Sed et in hunc jam gradum decurram, excernens inter doctrinam Apostolorum et potestatem. Disciplina hominem gubernat, potestas adsignat, seorsum quod potestas, spiritus autem Deus. Quid autem docebat? non communicandum operibus tenebrarum (Ephes., V, 11). Observa quod jubet. Quis autem poterat donare delicta? hoc solius ipsius est. Quis enim dimittit delicta, ni solus Deus (Marc., II, 7)? et utique mortalia quae in ipsum fuerint admissa et in templum ejus; nam tibi quae in te reatum habeant, etiam septuagies septies juberis indulgere 1024A in persona Petri (Matth., XVIII, 22). Itaque, si et ipsos beatos Apostolos tale aliquid indulsisse constaret, cujus venia a Deo, non ab homine, competeret, non ex disciplina, sed ex potestate fecisse. Nam et mortuos suscitaverunt, quod Deus solus; et debiles redintegraverunt, quod nemo nisi Christus; imo et plagas inflixerunt, quod noluit Christus. Non enim decebat eum saevire, qui pati venerat. Percussus est Ananias et Elimas, Ananias morte, Elimas caecitate (Act., V, 5, XIII, 11), ut hoc ipso probaretur Christum et haec facere potuisse. Sic et prophetae caedem et cum ea moechiam poenitentibus ignoverant, quia et severitatis documenta fecerunt. Exhibe igitur et nunc mihi, apostolice, prophetica exempla, et agnoscam divinitatem, et 1024B vindica tibi delictorum ejuscemodi remittendorum potestatem. Quod si disciplinae solius officia sortitus es, nec imperio praesidere, sed ministerio, quis aut quantus es indulgere? qui neque prophetam, nec apostolum exhibens, cares ea virtute cujus est indulgere? Sed habet, inquis, potestatem Ecclesia delicti donandi. Hoc ego magis et agnosco et dispono, qui ipsum Paracletum in prophetis novis habeo dicentem: Potest Ecclesia donare delictum, sed non faciam, ne et alia delinquant. Quid, si pseudopropheticus spiritus pronuntiavit? Atqui magis eversoris fuisset, et semetipsum de clementia commendare, et caeteros ad delinquentiam temperare. Aut si et hoc secundum spiritum veritatis adfectare gestivit, ergo spiritus veritatis potest quidem indulgere fornicatoribus 1025A veniam, sed cum plurium malo non vult. De tua nunc sententia quaero, unde hoc jus Ecclesiae usurpes. Si, quia dixerit Petro Dominus: Super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam; tibi dedi claves regni coelestis, vel: Quaecumque alligaveris vel solveris in terra, erunt alligata vel soluta in coelis (Matth., XVI, 18, 19); idcirco praesumis et ad te derivasse solvendi et alligandi potestatem, id est ad omnem Ecclesiam Petri propinquam; qualis'es evertens atque commutans manifestam Domini intentionem personaliter hoc Petro conferentem: Super te, inquit, aedificabo Ecclesiam meam; et: Dabo tibi claves, non Ecclesiae; et: Quaecumque solveris vel alligaveris, non quae solverint vel alligaverint. Sic enim et exitus docet. In ipso Ecclesia exstructa est, id est per ipsum, 1025B ipse clavem imbuit; vide quam: Viri Israelitae, auribus mandate quae dico; Jesum Nazarenum virum a Deo vobis destinatum (Act., II, 22), et reliqua. Ipse denique primus in Christi baptismo reseravit aditum coelestis regni, quo solvuntur alligata retro delicta, et alligantur quae non fuerint soluta, secundum veram salutem; et Ananiam vinxit vinculo mortis; et debilem pedibus absolvit vitio valetudinis (Act., III, 7). Sic et in illa disceptatione custodiendae necne legis, primus omnium Petrus Spiritu instinctus, et de nationum vocatione praefatus: Et nunc, inquit, cur tentatis Dominum de imponendo jugo fratribus quod neque nos neque patres nostri sufferre valuerunt? Sed 1026A enim per gratiam Jesu credimus nos salutem consecuturos sicut et illi (Act., XV, 10, 11). Haec sententia et solvit quae omissa sunt legis, et alligavit quae reservata sunt. Adeo nihil ad delicta fidelium capitalia potestas solvendi et alligandi Petro emancipata. Cui si praeceperat Dominus etiam septuagies delinquenti in eum fratri indulgere (Matth., XVIII, 22); utique nihil postea alligare, id est retinere mandasset, nisi forte ea quae in Dominum, non in fratrem quis admiserit; praejudicatur enim non dimittenda in Deum delicta, cum in homine admissa donantur. Quid nunc et ad Ecclesiam, et quidem tuam, psychice? Secundum enim Petri personam spiritalibus potestas ista conveniet aut apostolo, aut prophetae. Nam et Ecclesia proprie et principaliter ipse est Spiritus in 1026B quo est trinitas unius divinitatis, Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus. Illam Ecclesiam congregat, quam Dominus in tribus posuit. Atque ita exinde etiam numerus omnis qui in hanc fidem conspiraverint, Ecclesia ab auctore et consecratore censetur. Et ideo Ecclesia quidem delicta donabit; sed Ecclesia Spiritus per spiritalem hominem, non ecclesia numerus episcoporum: Domini enim, non famuli est jus et arbitrium; Dei ipsius, non sacerdotis.