power had been given to
the pope by divine right, God would not have desisted; at some
time it would have been fulfilled. For he says that "not a jot or
letter shall remain unfulfilled." [Matt. 5:18] But in the
extension of Roman power over all Christendom not one letter has
ever been fulfilled.

And it does not help to say, it is not the fault of the Romans,
but of the heretics, that it has not been fulfilled. Heretic
here, heretic there! God's order and promise cannot be hindered
or prevented by the gates of hell, much less by the heretics;
surely He is strong enough to make true His own Word, without the
help of heretics. And inasmuch as He has never done so, and
leaves it unfulfilled to this day, regardless of all the zeal,
diligence, toil and labor, and cunning and trickery besides,
which the Romans have expended on it, I hope it is sufficiently
established just what the pope's authority is, beyond that of
other bishops and priests; namely, that it is of human and not of
divine right. Christ's kingdom has been at all times in all the
world, as is written in Psalms ii. [Ps. 2:8] and xix [Ps. 19:4],
but never was it entirely under the pope, even for one hour, in
spite of those who say otherwise.

[Sidenote: Two Passages versus One]

Although all this is well-established truth, we shall
nevertheless proceed to demolish their idle fairy-tales still
more, and say: Even if it were not valid that the two sayings in
Matthew [Matt. 18:18] and John [John 20:22], which make the power
of the keys a common possession, should explain the one saying of
Matthew, which sounds as if the keys were given to Peter alone;
yet the case cannot proceed any further than to establish a
doubt, whether the one passage shall interpret the two, or the
two the one, and I hold as tenaciously to the two, as they to the
one. Furthermore, that doubt gives certainty to us, so that it is
entirely for us to say whether we will have the pope for a head
or not. For where a matter is in doubt, no one is a heretic,
whether he hold to one view or to another; this they themselves
admit. And thus their argument again is brought to naught, and
they can produce nothing but uncertainty and doubt. Therefore
they must either give up all three passages as inadequate to
establish their case, since their meaning is obscure; or else
they must cite others, which explicitly indicate that the two
must be interpreted by the one. This they cannot do; I defy them
to