Sermon LXVI. On the Heretical Doctrines Concerning Marriage, Holy Orders, and Purgatory

"Catch us the little foxes that destroy the vines."

"Catch us the little foxes that destroy the vines." Here I am again, my brethren, to resume the chase of these foxes which, as the Psalmist expresses it, turn out of their path to plunder the vineyard. It is not enough for them to abandon the right way unless they can also ruin the vines, adding prevarication to error. It is not enough for them to be heretics unless they are also hypocrites, so that their sin might be exceedingly great. These are they that come in the clothing of sheep in order to strip the ewes and to despoil the rams. And do you not think they have accomplished both these objects where the people are found to have been robbed of their faith and the priests of their people? But who or what are these robbers? They are sheep in their covering, foxes in their cunning, wolves in their conduct and in their cruelty. They are those who desire to appear virtuous without being so, and to be vicious without appearing so. They are wicked and wish to be regarded as good, lest they should remain alone in their wickedness. They are afraid of being reputed evil, lest they should not be evil enough. For manifest evil is always comparatively powerless for mischief. It is only the simulation of virtue chat can ever seduce the virtuous. These, therefore, although wicked, endeavour to appear good, for the ruin of those who are really good. They are unwilling to be known as evil lest their power for evil should thereby be restricted. The practice of the virtues is not in favour amongst th. m, but they employ a semblance of virtue as a varnish for vice. They even call their impious superstition by the honourable name of religion. According to their definition, innocence consists in abstaining from openly injuring anyone. Hence they are satisfied with the outward colour of innocence. They make vows of continency simply as a shelter for their turpitude. Marriage is regarded by ihem as the only means of offending against good morals, whereas in truth it is only marriage that could justify their/ own unlawful practices. As I have already remarkedj, they are boorish, ignorant clowns, and altogether' beneath contempt. But for aU that, I assure you, it is necessary to deal with them carefully. "For they grow much towards ungodliness," as the Apostle says, "and their speech spreadeth like a canker."

The Holy Spirit has not neglected to warn us against these sectaries. Long ago He gave a clear premonition of their coming, by the mouth of St. Paul who says, speaking to Timothy, "Now the Spirit manifestly saith, chat in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error and doctrines of devils, speaking lies in hypocrisy and having their conscience seared, forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving." Such, my brethren, are our modern heretics, of whom beyond a doubt these words have been spoken. For they certainly "forbid to marry" and enjoin abstinence "from the meatti which God hath created," as we shall see afterwards. But consider now if this burlesque of religion may not be more properly ascribed to devils than to men, as the Holy Spirit foretold of it. For if you ask its upholders who was the founder of their superstition they cannot tell you. Which of the other religious sects has not had for author its own human heresiarch? The Manicheans acknowledge Manes as their founder and lawgiver; the Sabellians recognise Sabellius; the Arians, Arius; the Eunomians, Eunomius; the Nestorians, Nestorius. Similarly, all the rest of these pestiferous heresies are known to have each its own earthly deviser, from whom it derives both its name and its origin. But by what name or eponym are these latter-day sectaries called? By none.¹ For their heresy "is not from man nor did (they) receive it through man." God forbid that we should say it came to them "by the revelation of Jesus Christ"! No, they received it without any doubt, and, as the Holy Ghost predicted, through the inspiration and deceit of the devils, "speaking Hes in hypocrisy and forbidding to marry."

Surely it is in hypocrisy and in the cunning of foxes that they declare marriage unlawful. For whilst they v pretend to be actuated by the love of continence, the real purpose of their innovation is simply to encourage and to multiply sin. This is so manifest that I find it hard to conceive how any Christian could ever have been imposed upon. Either those who represent the sect are so brutishly dull that they cannot perceive how the prohibition of marriage gives free rein to every species of sensuality; or else they are so steeped in iniquity, so plunged in diabolical malevolence, that they connive at the consequences which they fully realise, and take pleasure in the loss of human souls. Banish from Christendom "marriage honourable in all and the bed undefiled," and have you not filled it thereby with all manner of uncleanness and corruption? Choose therefore one or other of these alternatives: either affirm that no kind of immorality, be it never so horrible, can be an obstacle to salvation; or limit the number of the pre-l destinate to the few that have strength to remain! continent. How rigorous are you in the latter! How liberal in the former! But the Saviour will not sanction! either the one or the other. What? Shall moral turpitude be crowned in heaven? Nothing could be less worthy of the Divine Author of purity. Shall the whole ></ human race be condemned save only the few who are continent? But Christ could not then be truly called the Saviour of mankind. Continence is a rare gift amongst men. Nor is it to be supposed that the Word emptied Himself of His plenitude for the sake of so small a harvest on earth. And how can it be 3aid that we have all received of that plenitude, if it has communicated itself to none but the continent?² They—the heretics—have nothing to answer to this. But I think they shall find it equally impossible to defend the other alternative. For if heaven is the home of purity, and if virtue can have no fellowship with vice, any more than light with darkness, certainly there can be no room for the unclean in the company of the saved. To deny this would be to contradict the Apostle, who declares in unmistakable terms that "they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God." By what way shall the crafty fox be able to escape now from his den? I think we have at last caught him in his cavern, in which he had made for himself two openings, one for entrance and the other for exit. Such is the custom of foxes. See then how both ways have been blocked to prevent his escape:³ if he will admit into heaven none save the continent, the vast majority of men are excluded from salvation; if he opens paradise to the licentious with the pure, then purity perishes. But rather and more justly shall the fox himself perish, since he can get away neither by this way nor by that, being caught and confined for ever in the pit which he himself hath digged.

Some of the sectaries, however, dissenting from the rest, acknowledge the lawfulness of marriage, yet only between two virgins. But I fail to see on what valid grounds such a distinction can be established, except that these heretics seem to emulate each other in tearing to pieces the sacraments of the Church, every one according to his own particular fancy; just as vipers are said to rend with their venemous fangs the vitals of the mother that bears them. For with regard to what they are represented as saying about the first of all marriages, namely, that it was a marriage of virgins, how, I ask, can that be regarded as prejudicing the liberty of the matrimonial contract so as to render V it unlawful unless the parties be virgins? But they y throw out obscure hints of having found I know not what in the Gospel, which as they vainly pretend, lends support to their ravings. I suppose it is the words which the Saviour added after quoting this testimony from Genesis, "God created man to His own image and likeness, male and female He created them," namely, "what therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder." "God," say these heretics, ' joined together our first parents because they were both virgins, and thereafter it was not lawful for them to separate. But the marriage which >/ other than virgins presume to contract has no divine sanction." But, I cask, who told you that the reason ' why God joined together Adam and Eve was their virginity? For the Scripture does not say so. "But were they not virgins? ' Certainly they were. Yet it is not the same thing to assert that they were virgins when married, and that they were married because they were virgins. Nay, you do not even find it expressly mentioned that the two were virgins, although of this there can be no doubt. The text, - male and female He created them "distinctly refers not to the integrity of their bodies but to the diversity of their sex. And that for wise reasons. For it is not the former but the latter that the matrimonial alliance essentially demands. Therefore, the Holy Ghost, when instituting marriage, prudently mentioned the distinction of sex, but made no allusion to virginity, in order to leave the crafty little foxes no opportunity for mere juggling with words. How gladly they would have profited by such an occasion! Although, as a matter of fact, it would not have helped their cause in the least. For even if the Holy Spirit had said, "virgins He created them," instead of "male and female He created them," what would you have gained thereby? Could you thence conclude immediately that marriage was permitted to none but virgins? Yet with what triumph you would have seized the purely verbal advantage! How you would have denounced second and third marriages! How you would have insultingly censured the Catholic Church for allowing the licentious to be united in lawful wedlock, which she does all the more unhesitatingly, because she knows well that they will henceforth live in honour who would else have lived in sin. Perchance you would even reprehend the Lord Himself for commanding the Prophet Osee to marry a sinner. But the Spirit of God has not given you this occasion of heresy, and nevertheless, even without it, you have chosen to be heretics. For the very passage of Scripture which you attempted to make the foundation of your. error, you have now discovered to be rather in your way. It has turned out to be no help to you at all, but very much of a hindrance.

But hear now another text, which, if it does not correct you entirely, must at least utterly confound you, for it completely shatters and annihilates your heresy. "A woman," so we read, "is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband die, she is at liberty; let her marry to whom she will only in the Lord." It is St. Paul that here grants the, widow permission to marry "whom she will." And yet you forbid her, laying down the law that none butv' a virgin shall marry, and she only to a virgin. So that you do not allow even the virgin to marry "to whom she will." Why would you thus shorten the arm of God? Why would you limit the freedom of marriage which His generosity has left unrestricted? Why would you confine to the virgin a liberty allowed v indiscriminate^ to the sex? Certainly St. Paul would never have made such a concession unless it were lawful. But I am saying too little when I represent him as only conceding marriage to widows. He positively wills that they should marry. "I will therefore," he says, ** that the younger should marry." Nor can there be any doubt that he is speaking in this place of widows, since the context puts ihat beyond question., Therefore what he allows because it is lawful, he wiUs also because it is expedient. And does the heretic, prohibit what i«^ both lawful and expedient? Surelyj the only result such a prohibition can have will be to expose him for the heretic that he is.

It remains for us now, my brethren, to press the foxes with the remaining part also of the Apostle's prediction. For, as he foretold of them, they "abstain from the meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving." In this again they prove themselves heretics, not simply because they abstain, but because their abstinence is the avowal of heretical doctrines. I also abstain sometimes; bui; my abstinence is intended as a satisfaction for sin, not as the profession of an impious superstition. Surely we do not blame St. Paul for chastising his body and reducing it to servitude? Thus I abstain from wine, because in wine there is luxury, as Holy Scripture tells me- However, I use a little when I am weak, according to the Apostle's advice. I abstain from flesh meat also, lest by unduly fostering the flesh, I should foster at the same time the vices of the flesh. Even dry bread I wUl study to eat in measure, because when the stomach is filled with food, one finds it hard to be attentive at prayer; and besides I should be afraid of being reproached by the Prophet Ezechiel were I to eat my bread to satiety.⁴ Nay, I will accustom myself to be sparing even in the use of cold water, lest body repletion should excite the motions of concupiscence. But the heretic has very different motives for his abstinence. Thus milk he holds in horror, as well as all that is made from it, with everything else connected in any way with procreation. If only he denied himself such things, not because they are the fruit but because they are the stimulants of passion, how commendable would his abstinence be and how worthy of a Christian!

But what can he mean by this general exclusion of every kind of food which has its source in concupiscence? The distinction of meats thus clearly expressed makes me suspicious. Yet if thou wilt explain that thou art only following the doctor's prescription, I shall not blame thee for taking care of thy flesh, "for no one ever hated his own flesh," provided however that thou dost keep within the limits of moderation. If thou sayest that thou art conforming to the rules of asceticism, that is, carrying out the recommendations of the spiritual physicians, I shall even commend the virtue thou dost exercise in subduing the flesh and bridling thy passions. But if, influenced by the Manichean fanaticism, thou proscribest the benefit of God, so that what He created and bestowed upon us "to be received with thanksgiving," thou, not only as an ingrate, but even as an impudent censurer, dost presume to pronounce unclean and to avoid as evil — in that case, far from praising thy abstinence, I shall rather abhor thy blasphemy: I shall rather look upon thee as unclean who dost attribute uncleanness to the creatures of God. "All things are clean to the clean," says St. Paul, that most excellent judge, and there is / nothing which is unclean except to him who esteems it so. "To them that are defiled and to unbelievers," continues the Apostle, "nothing is clean; but both their mind and their conscience is defiled." Woe to you that repudiate with scorn the food which God has created, who regard as unclean and unworthy of being assimilated to your bodies the aliments which He has provided! For on account of such blasphemy the mystical body of Christ, which is the Church, has repudiated yourselves as defiled and polluted.

I am not unaware, my brethren, that these people boast that they themselves and they alone constitute the mystical body of Christ. But indeed they ought to have no difficulty in persuading themselves of this, considering that they are also persuaded that they have the power of daily consecrating on their altars the Body and Blood of Christ⁵ to be their nourishment and to form them into His mystical body and members. For they proudly proclaim themselves to be the successors of the apostles and call themselves the apostolics, although they are able to show no proof of their apostolate. How long will they keep their light concealed under a bushel? "You are the light of the world," said the Lord to His apostles; and therefore He set them upon a candlestick in order that they might illumine the whole earth. It ought to be a subject of shame to the successors of the apostles that they are the light, not of the world, but only of a bushel.⁶ For they are rather the darkness of the world. Let us then say to these apostles: Yoif^'are the darkness of the world; and with that let us pass on to the consideration of their other doctrines.

They call themselves the Church. But they contradict thereby Him Who has said, "A city seated on a high mountain cannot be hid." I say to them: do you really believe that the stone which was "cut out of the mountain without hands" and which "became a great mountain and filled the whole earth," is enclosed within your little hiding-holes? However, we must not pause even here. They refuse to proclaim openly what they believe, content with their secret whispering. But Christ holds and shall ever hold His inheritance undiminished, and "the utmost parts of the earth for His possession." They only withdraw themselves from that great inheritance, who endeavour to wrest it from Christ.

But look at these slanderers, behold these dogs. They ridicule us because we administer baptism to infants, because we pray for the dead, because we solicit the intercession of the saints. They themselves are full of impatience to proscribe Christ amongst all classes of men, in both sexes, in infants and adults, in the living and in the dead. For He is interdicted to the child on account of his natural incapacity; and to him who has reached the age of discretion, because of the difficulty of observing continence. Moreover, they would rob the dead of the suffrages of the living; and at the same time they try to defraud the living of the assistance of the saints in glory. But God forbid that their designs should prosper. No, the Lord will not abandon His people, which rival in number the sands of the sea; neither shall He Who has redeemed all men be satisfied with saving a handful of heretics. For "with Him is a plentiful — not a scanty — redemption." But what proportion can the fewness of these sectaries bear to the immensity of the ransom? They rather deprive themselves of the benefit of redemption by their attempt to lessen its fruit. What matters it that the infant cannot speak for himself, since the voice of the Blood of his Brother — and such a Brother — crieth out to God from the earth in his behalf. His mother, the Church, too, stands by and speaks for him. But is the infant altogether silent? Does he not seem to you, my brethren, to sigh for the "fountains of the Saviour," and to call aloud to God, and by his inarticulate cries to exclaim, "Lord, I suffer violence, answer Thou for me"! He implores the help of grace because he suffers violence from nature. The misery of the innocent one lifts up its voice, and the ignorance of the little one, and the helplessness of the abandoned one. Therefore, all these advocates plead the infant's cause, his Brother's Blood, his mother's faith, the helplessness of his misery, and the misery of his helplessness. And they plead with the Father. Now the Father, being a true father, can never contradict the name He bears.

Let no man object to me that the infant has not faith. For his mother, the Church, communicates to him her own, wrapping it up for him (so to speak) in the sacrament of regeneration, until he becomes capable of receiving it by the positive and explicit concurrence of his own intellect and will. Do you think that the faith of the Church is like the Prophet's "short covering which cannot cover two"? Nay, it is a most ample cloak. For surely her faith is not less than that of the Canaanite woman, which was sufficient, as we know, to cover both herself and her daughter. Hence she deserved to hear, "O woman, great is thy faith. Be it done to thee as thou wilt." Or shall it be said that the Church's faith is inferior to the faith of them who let down the paralytic through the roof and obtained for him the health both of soul and body? "And Jesus, seeing their faith," so we read, "said to the man sick of the palsy: Be of good heart, son, thy sins are forgiven thee." And a little afterwards He added, "Arise, take up thy bed and walk" Anyone who believes what is here recorded, can have no difficulty in convincing himself of the reasonableness of the confidence entertained by the Church, not only as regards the salvation of the infants baptised in her faith, but also concerning the martyr's crown for the little ones that were slain for the sake of Christ. This being so, no argument against the salvation of regenerated infants can be drawn from the words of the Apostle, "Without faith it is impossible to please God." For those infants are not without faith, who in testimony of their faith have received the grace of baptism. Neither does their cause suffer any prejudice from the Saviour's pronouncement, "But he that belie veth not shaU be condemned." For what is it to believe except to have faith? Accordingly, as the Apostle tells us, the woman "shall be saved through child-bearing; if she continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety"; the infant shall be saved by the regeneration of holy baptism; the adult, who cannot observe continence, shall be redeemed with the thirty-fold fruit of conjugal virtue; the dead who may have need and may be found worthy, shaU obtain relief, through the ministry of the angels, from the prayers and sacrifices of the living; and the living, finally, shall never lack the assistance and consolation of the saints in bliss, who, out of an affection of tender charity, remain always near them, through and in God, everywhere present. "For to this end," says the Apostle, "Christ died and rose again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living." It may also be said, that to this end He was bom as a little child, and passed through each of the different stages of human existence between infancy and maturity, in order that His example might be wanting to none.

These heretics further maintain that there is no purgatorial fire to be feared after death, but that every soul, as soon as she has been separated from the body, immediately either ascends to heaven or descends into hell. Let them, therefore, demand of Him Who has declared that there is a certain sin, which "shall not be forgiven neither in this world nor in the world to come," let them ask Him, I say, why He spoke thus, since, as they believe, there can be no remission or purgation of sin in the next life.⁷ Now it is nothing wonderful that they who refuse to recognise the Church should slander the various orders of the Church, should reject her institutions, should despise her sacraments, should disobey her commands. "The successors of the apostles," they say, "archbishops, bishops, and priests, are all sinners, and are thus incapable of validly either administering or receiving the sacraments." They hold indeed that to be a real prelate and to be a sinner are two things absolutely incompatible. But this is evidently false. Caiphas was a true high-priest, and yet how great a sinner! For it was he who pronounced sentence of death against the Lord. If thou deniest that he was a high-priest thou dost contradict the testimony of St. John Evangelist, who informs us that he (Caiphas) actually prophesied in virtue of his office of high-priest. Judas Iscariot was an apostle, having been chosen by Christ Himself, in spite of his avarice and sinfulness. Surely thou canst entertain no doubt of his apostolate, considering that it was the Lord Who elected him. "Have not I chosen you twelve," said He, *' and one of you is a devil? "Here thou art told that one who was a devil has been called to the apostolic office. And dost thou still deny that it is possible for a sinner to be a bishop? "The Scribes and Pharisees have sit ten on the chair of Moses," and all thai refused to hearken to them as to their ecclesiasticall superiors were accounted guilty of disobedience, even\ against the Lord, Who gave a command in the words, "Whatsoever they shall say to you, do and observe." It is clear, therefore, that although they were Scribes, although they were Pharisees, although they were the worst of sinners, nevertheless, because they had "sitten on the chair of Moses," to their authority also must be understood as applying these other words of Christ, "He that heareth you heareth Me, and he that despiseth you despise th Me."

Many other wicked doctrines also have been infused into the minds of *' this foolish and senseless people "by the spirits of error "who speak lies in hypocrisy." But it is not possible to examine them all. For, in the first place, who knows them all? Besides, the task would be exceedingly laborious and altogether unnecessary. For, as regards the sectaries themselves, they cannot be convinced by arguments, because they have not the capacity to understand them; they cannot be corrected by authority, because they recognise none; and they cannot be won over by entreaty, because they are entirely corrupted. Experience has proved that they will rather die than abandon their errors. Of such as these "the end is destruction," and their final doom devouring flames. For what we read of Samson, how he set fire to the tails of the unreasoning foxes, prefigured the fate in store for these rational ones. Often the faithful, laying hands on some of them, have dragged them to the presence of the judges. When questioned concerning their beliefs, they denied, according to their custom, all those errors whereof they were suspected. But when subjected to the ordeal of water they were found to be liars.⁸ Then, as they could no longer dissemble the truth, being exposed by the water which refused to receive them, they took the bit between their teeth, as the saying is, and with most miserable daring professed rather than confessed their heresy, openly defending as piety their impious doctrines, and were even prepared to suffer death for the same. Nor were those who stood by less ready to inflict death. The multitude rushed upon them and gave the heretics new martyrs of their perfidy. I quite approve of their zeal, but I cannot commend their action. For misbelievers must not be compelled by force to accept the faith, but won to it by arguments. Yet it is no doubt better that they should be forcibly restrained, namely, by the power of him "who beareth not the sword in vain," than be allowed to imbue the minds of others with their false doctrines. For the prince is "God's minister," and "an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil"

Some of the faithful have been astonished to see these heretics going to their death, not only with patience, but apparently with joy. But their surprise makes it plain that they do not realise sufficiently how great is Satan's power as well ovr the minds and hearts as over the bodies of those who have once delivered themselves up to him. Is it not a stranger thing for a man to lay violent hands on himself than that he should willingly submit to the violence of others? And yet the devil can prevail on many men to do this. For we have often heard of persons who drowned or hanged themselves at his suggestion. It was doubtless the devil that persuaded Judas to put an end to his life. Yet to me it seems a greater and more astonishing manifestation of power that he could put it into the heart of the faithless Apostle to betray his xMaster, than that he was able to induce him afterwards to hang himself. There is consequently no comparison between the constancy of the martyrs and the obstinacy of these heretics. In the case of the former, their contempt of death was an effect of their piety; in the latter, it proceeded from their hardness of heart. Hence it may be that the Psalmist is alluding to this distinction and personating the martyrs when he says, "Their\ heart is curdled like milk; but / have meditated on Thy law." For although the suffering was the same for all, there was a wide diversity in the disposition the heretics hardening their hearts against the Lord,' and the martyrs meditating on His love.⁹

Such being the case, there is no necessity, as I have already remarked, to waste many words on these most stupid and most obstinate of men. It is enough to have exposed them in order that they may be avoided. Wherefore, to catch the foxes, we must force them either to put away their female associates, or else to go out of the Church, which they are scandalising by their unbecoming manner of life. Yet it is much to be lamented that not only some civil magistrates, but some of the clergy also, yea, and I am told even some of the bishops, who ought rather to use their power against the heretics, accept their bribes and support them in their superstition for the sake of gain. But they will say to me, "How dost thou expect us to condemn men who can neither be brought to confess themselves heretics nor be convicted of heresy?" This, my brethren, is a frivolous excuse, yet it furnishes them with the occasion they desire. But let me say to them: By this test alone, even though all other means were lacking, you can easily discover the true character of these sectaries. Command the men and women to separate from each other, as I have before recommended. Oblige the latter to enter communities of their own sex and under the same vows as they have themselves taken; and let their companions likewise be compelled to live in monasteries of men, subject to obligations similar to their own. Thus you shall consult as well for the fidelity as for the good fame of all, because in their convents and in their monasteries they shall have trustworthy guardians and witnesses of their virtue. If, however, they refuse to obey these injunctions, they deserve, and deserve richly, to be expelled from the Church, and thus prevented from further scandalising her children by such improper and unlawful cohabitation. Let so much/ suffice for discovering the wiles of these foxes, and for instructing and admonishing the true children of the beloved and glorious Spouse of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is over all things, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Footnotes

1. Peter de Bruys, founder of the Manichean or Pantheistic sect of Petrobusians, may be regarded as the Luther of the twelfth century. And just as the Lutherans, his followers also divided almost immediately into a multitude of contending parties, differing from each other more or less, but retaining a strong family likeness, and unanimous in their hatred of the Catholic Church. Thus appeared the Henricians in Holland and Flanders, the Apostolicals in Perigueux, the Cathari in Italy, the Patarins in Germany, etc., etc. Amongst the more famous or rather infamous of the heresiarchs were the apostate monk, Henry, from whom the Henricians derived their name; Arnold of Brescia, whose disciples called themselves Arnoldists, and Tanchelin, the "divine man." The heretics of Cologne, with whom St. Bernard is here more particularly concerned, appear to have belonged to the sect founded by Tanchelin. As in the case of the other sects, its doctrinal absurdities simply served as a cloak for a hideous immorality. Speaking of the success which crowned the zeal and eloquence of the holy Abbot, Ratisbonne says, "St. Bernard stayed the outbreak of heresy in the twelfth century. What would have happened if there had been a St. Bernard in the sixteenth century? What if we had a St. Bernard now?"—(Translator.) ↩

2. The arguments employed here are the same as those which later writers have made use of to prove that the number of the elect must be at least equal to the number of the reprobate. Thus Genir, "numerus non reproborum est saltem compar reprobis, ne dici possit cum dedecore et injuria Divinae Majestatis et clementiae, majus esse imperium daemonum quam Christi, qui plane non fuderit Sanguinem suum quoad efficaciam, ut in tanta hominum paucitate, quam praefert communis opinio, sua copiosa redemptio adimpleretur" (apud Hurter, vol. ii. p. 102). For the various opinions on this question, see Faber, Creator and the Creature, pp. 324-332.—(Translator.) ↩

3. Something very like this occurs in St. Augustine: "Vulpes solent habere tales foveas ut ex una parte intrent et ex alia parte exeant. Ad utrumque foramen captor vulpium retia posuit . . . Videamus et nos si quosdam vulpeculas capere possumus: proponamus (retia) ad foramen utrumque, ut unde vulpes exire voluerit capiatur" (In Ps. lxxx.).—(Translator.) ↩

4. "Behold this was the iniquity of Sodom pride fulness of bread, and abundance" (Ezechiel xvi. 49).— (Translator.) ↩

5. It was the claim of these heretics (cf. Eberwin's letter prefixed to Sermon LXV.) that every person male and female baptised in their sect by the imposition of hands, received thereby the power to consecrate the Body and Blood of Christ. The form thev used was the Pater Noster. And it would seem, too that they did not consider wheaten bread and we ot the grape to be the onlv valid matter. — (Translator.) ↩

6. Pudeat successores apostolorum lucem non esse mundi ed modii." — (Translator.) ↩

7. Similarly, St. Augustine, "Neque de quibusdam veraciter diceretur, quod non eis remittatur, neque in hoc saeculo neque in futuro, nisi essent quibus etsi non in isto, tamen remittetur in futuro" (De Civ. Dei, lxxi., c. xxiv.). As to the manner in which sins are forgiven in the next life, theologians tell us that the justified soul, immediately on parting from the body, elicits an intensely fervent act of charity, which wipes away the guilt of venal faults, leaving the debt of punishment due to them to be paid in full. Cf. St. Thomas de Malo, q. 7, a. 11.—(Translator.) ↩

8. Certain authors have concluded from these words that St. Bernard believed in the efficacy of such ordeals. But, as Mabillon, after Horst, points out, the Saint is not here asserting anything of himself, but merely witnessing to the belief of the people. Besides he could not have been ignorant that these "tests" had been repeatedly condemned as superstitious by the Church.—(Translator.) ↩

9. Compare with St. Augustine, "Fortitudinem gentilium mundana cupiditas facit, fortitudinem Christianorum Dei charitas facit" (Contra Julian., l. i.). "Martyres non facit poena sed causa" (In Ps. lxxxiv.). "Laus martyrum non erit in poena sed in causa; non persecutionem pati, non teneri, non flagellari, non proscribi, non occidi laus est, sed habendo causam bonam ista pati, haec laus est. Laus enim est in causae bonitate, non in poena acerbitate" (In Ps. lxvii.).—(Translator.) ↩