Sermo 65

Sermo 65

I've given you two sermons on one topic, and I'm preparing a third—if you're not tired of listening. And I think it's necessary. For insofar as it concerns our own household vineyard—which is you—I believe I have done enough in two sermons as a defense for it against the snares of a three-fold kind of fox: flatterers, slanderers, and certain seductive spirits skilled and practiced at leading people into evil under the appearance of good. But the Lord's vineyard is not like that. I'm talking about the one that has filled the earth, and we are a part of it: a very great vineyard, planted by the Lord's hand, redeemed with blood, watered with the word, spread by grace, made fruitful by the Spirit. So, caring more for my own, I've been of less service to the common good. But what moves me for the vineyard itself is the great number of those tearing it down, the fewness of those defending it, and how difficult it is to defend. The hiding makes it difficult. For since the Church has always had foxes from its very beginning, they were all quickly found out and caught. The heretic fought openly — that's what made him most a heretic, that he wanted to win in the open — and was defeated. And so those foxes were easily caught. What would it matter if the heretic, set before the light of truth, remained alone in the shadows of his own stubbornness, bound outside and left to wither?¹ Still, the fox was considered caught, condemned for its wickedness, and the impious one cast out — put on display, certainly, for all to see, but for the benefit of those who would endure, not for his own profit.² In this, as the prophet said, they had breasts that were dry and a womb that was barren — because error, once publicly refuted, does not sprout again, and open falsehood bears no fruit.^✦3 What are we to do with these most wicked foxes, so they may be caught — they who choose to harm rather than to conquer, who don't even want to show themselves, but to creep along in secret? Heretics have always had one shared aim: to capture glory for themselves through a claim to unique knowledge. This particular heresy, more malignant and more cunning than the rest, feeds on the ruin of others while disregarding its own glory. Taught, I believe, by the examples of the ancients — who, once exposed, could not escape but were immediately seized — it has learned to work the mystery of iniquity through a new kind of wrongdoing, the more freely the more it can stay hidden. In short, they have, as the phrase goes, appointed hiding places for themselves and established for themselves a corrupt way of speaking. Swear, swear falsely — only do not betray the secret. Indeed, on other matters they refuse to agree even to a modest oath, because of that passage in the Gospel: Do not swear, either by heaven or by earth, and so on.^✦ O foolish and slow of heart, filled plainly with a Pharisaic spirit — straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!^✦ . Swearing is not allowed, but perjury is? Is it only in this one case that both are permitted? From which passage of the Gospels do you bring forward that exception for me, when you don't even pass over an iota, so that you might boast falsely?^✦4 It's clear that you both observe the matter of oaths superstitiously, and presume shamefully about perjury. What perversity! What was advised as a cautionary measure—namely, not to swear—those people observe so contentiously in place of a commandment; and what was established by unshakable law—namely, that one must not commit perjury—they treat as though it were a matter of no consequence, dispensing with it according to their own will.⁵ No, they say, but we shouldn't make the mystery public. As if it were not the glory of God to reveal speech. Or do the gods envy glory? they're ashamed to lay it open, knowing itlorious. For they're said to do unspeakable and obscene things in secret, since even the hindquarters of foxes stink. But I'm passing over what they'd deny — let them answer to the plain facts. Or do they follow the Gospel by being careful not to give what is holy to dogs, or to throw pearls before swine?⁶ But to confess that openly is to declare themselves outside the Church — those who consider everyone outside their own sect to be dogs and swine. Because without exception, they think that whatever belongs to anyone who is not of their own sect must be taken away from them. And yet, even if they privately think this, they won't say so openly — for fear of being exposed, since they flee from it in every way but will not escape. Answer me, O man — you who are wiser than is fitting and more foolish than can be put into words. Is it God's mystery that you're hiding — or isn't it? If it is, why don't you open it for his glory? For the glory of God is to reveal his word.^✦ If not, why do you put your faith in something that isn't God's — unless it's because you're a heretic? So either let them bring forth God's secret for his glory, or let them deny God's mystery — and at the very least not deny that they are heretics — or else let them certainly admit, however reluctantly, that they are open enemies of God's glory, since they refuse to let be made manifest what they know will serve his glory.⁷ The truth of Scripture stands, then: it is the glory of kings to conceal a matter, and the glory of God to reveal a word.^✦ You don't want to reveal it? So you don't want to glorify God. But perhaps you don't accept this Scripture. So it is: they claim to be zealous followers of the Gospel alone — and of it alone.⁸ So let them answer the Gospel. What I tell you in the darkness, speak in the light; and what you hear in the ear, proclaim from the housetops.^✦ It's no longer permissible to stay silent. How long will what God commands to be done openly be kept hidden? How long will your Gospel remain covered up? I suspect yours is not Paul's: he admits his own wasn't hidden. Even if, he says, my Gospel is veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing.^✦ Be careful that he doesn't say this about you, among whom the Gospel is found hidden. What's clearer than the fact that you're perishing? Or perhaps you don't even accept Paul? About some people I've heard it put this way: You don't all agree among yourselves in everything, even though you all dissent from us. But as for the words, writings, and traditions of those who were with the Savior in the body, you all receive them with an authority equal to that of the Gospel—if I'm not mistaken—without distinguishing between them. Surely those men didn't keep their Gospel hidden? Surely in God they didn't keep silent about the weaknesses of the flesh, the terrors of death, and the disgrace of the cross? And indeed, their voice has gone out into all the earth.^✦ Where is the apostolic pattern and way of life you boast about? They cry out; you whisper. They are in public; you are in a corner. They fly like clouds; you hide in darkness and underground houses. What likeness to them do you show in yourselves? Or is it that you don't actually go about with little women—you shut them in with you instead? Company doesn't open itself to suspicion in the same way that living together does. But who would suspect anything sinister of those who raised the dead? You do the same, and I'll think one woman reclining with one man. Otherwise you'd be rashly claiming their authority for yourself, when you don't have their holiness. To always be with a woman and not know her intimately — isn't that greater than raising the dead? What is lesser you can't do; and what is greater, you want me to believe you can? Every day at table your side is next to the young woman's; in the bedroom your bed is next to hers; in conversation your eyes are on her eyes; in work your hands are on her hands: and you want to be thought chaste? So be it, that you are — but I'm not free of suspicion. You're a stumbling block to me: remove the cause of it, so you can prove yourself genuine, as you claim, a zealous imitator of the Gospel. Whoever causes one person in the Church to stumble — doesn't the Gospel condemn them? You cause the Church to stumble. You are a fox tearing down the vineyard. Help me, companions, so she can be caught; or better yet, catch her for us yourselves, O holy angels. She is thoroughly crafty, covered over with wickedness and her own impiety. Clearly she is so small and subtle that she can easily elude human sight. Surely not yours as well? So that voice calls out to you, as companions of the bridegroom: Catch the little foxes for us.^✦ Therefore, do what you're told: catch for us this sly little fox, which look, we've been chasing in vain for a long time now. Teach and show us how this fraud can be detected. That's what it means to have caught the fox: because a false Catholic does far more harm than an open heretic ever could. But it's not within a person's power to know what's really going on inside someone else — unless perhaps they themselves have been illuminated by the Spirit of God, or informed by angelic activity. What sign will you give, so that this vilest heresy — trained to lie not only with words but with an entire way of life — can be laid bare for all to see? And indeed, the recent devastation of the vineyard points to a fox having been present—but I don't know by what art of dissembling this most cunning creature so thoroughly confounds its own tracks that where it either enters or goes out, it can scarcely be detected by man.^✦ And when the deed lies open, the author does not appear; so completely, through the things that are visible on the surface, does it disguise everything. In short, if you question his faith, nothing more Christian; if his way of life, nothing more irreproachable—and what he says, he backs up with deeds. You might see a man, as a testimony to his own faith, frequenting the church, honoring the presbyters, offering his gift, making his confession, sharing in the sacraments. What could be more faithful? As to what pertains to his life and character, he cheats no one, overreaches no one, shakes no one. His face is pale besides with fastings; he does not eat bread without working, laboring with his hands to sustain his life. Where is the fox now? We were holding on to her — how has she slipped from our grasp? How has she vanished so suddenly? Let's press forward, let's investigate: we'll know her by her fruits. And the destruction of the vineyards certainly testifies to the fox. Women, leaving their husbands, and likewise men, sending their wives away, betake themselves to those men. Clerics and priests, leaving their peoples and churches, unshorn and bearded, have commonly been found among those men, among male and female weavers. Is this not a grievous destruction? Are these not the works of foxes? But perhaps these things aren't detected so clearly among everyone, and even if they are, there's no way to prove them. How do we catch them? Let's go back to the company and cohabitation of women, for among them there's no one who lacks this. I ask one of these men. Hey there, good man! Who is this woman, and where does she come from to you? Is she your wife? No, he says, for that doesn't fit my vow. So she's a daughter? No. Then what? Not a sister, not a granddaughter, not even related to you in any way, whether by blood or by marriage? Not in any way at all. And how is it safe for you, given this self-control of yours? Surely that's not permitted to you. Cohabitation between men and women among those who have vowed celibacy — something you may not know — is forbidden by the Church. If you don't want to cause the Church to stumble, cast the woman out. Otherwise, from this one thing, everything else that isn't nearly so obvious becomes, beyond any doubt, entirely credible. But tell me, where in the Gospel do you point out that this is forbidden? You have appealed to the Gospel; you will go to the Gospel. If you obey the Gospel, you won't cause a scandal, for the Gospel clearly forbids anyone to cause a scandal. But by not removing her, you're doing exactly that, contrary to the established rule of the Church. You were suspected before, but now you're clearly judged to be both a despiser of the Gospel and an opponent of the Church. What are you deciding, brothers? If he's so stubborn that he neither obeys the Gospel nor yields to the Church, what further evasion can he attempt now? Doesn't it seem plain to you that the fraud has been detected and the fox caught? If she does not remove the woman, she does not remove the stumbling block; and if she does not remove the stumbling block when she could remove it, she is bound as a transgressor of the Gospel. What is the Church to do, except remove the one who refuses to remove the stumbling block, so that she may not become like that disobedient person? For the Church has a command from the Gospel not to spare the eye that causes itself to stumble, nor the hand, nor the foot — to tear out that eye, cut off those members, and throw them away from herself.^✦ If she doesn't listen to the Church, let her be to you as a pagan and a tax collector.^✦ Have we accomplished anything? I think we have. We've caught the fox, because we've detected its deceit. Those false Catholics who were lying hidden have now been exposed — true plunderers of the Catholic faith. While you were sharing sweet meals with me — I mean the body and blood of Christ — while we walked together in the house of God with mutual consent, there was room, or rather opportunity, for seduction, just as the book of Wisdom says: the hypocrite deceives his own friend with his words. But now, following Paul's wisdom, after a first and second warning I will steer clear of a heretical person, knowing that whoever is of that kind has been subverted; and so I will be cautious and take care that such a person does not also become a subverter.^✦ So it means something, as the word of the Wise One has it, that the wicked are caught in their own snares — especially those wicked people who are cunning enough to use traps instead of open arms. For all struggle and any defense against such people has completely perished. This is, to be sure, a cheap and common sort of people, unlettered and entirely unskilled in argument. In short, they are foxes — and little ones — but neither are those things they are said to hold wrong def they as subtle as they are persuasive, and that only among ignorant, uneducated country people of the sort that everyone who has had any experience of this sect so far has proved to be. For among all their claims — and there are many — I don't recall hearing anything new or unheard of, but only what is worn thin and long bandied about among the early heretics, and crushed and thoroughly winnowed by our own teachers. Still, it must be said — and I will say — what those absurdities are: partly those which they themselves have confessed to answering Catholics incautiously when questioned, partly those they have betrayed by quarreling among themselves while divided from one another, and partly also which some of them have disclosed upon returning to the Church — not so that I might answer every one, for that isn't necessary, but simply so that they may become known. But that will be the work of another discourse, to the praise and glory of the name of the bridegroom of the Church, Jesus Christ our Lord, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.