As we know, his theology was professedly the “theology of the cross.” As for his foes, lay, clerical or monastic, their outward works were but the lamb-skins concealing the wolves beneath:
“Ad alia vocati, quam quæ ipsi elegerunt, difficiles imo rebelles sunt et contrarii, impatientes, [inclinati] detrahere ac iudicare, alios negligere, contentiosi, opiniosæ cervicis, indomiti sensus, ideo non pacifici, brevianimes, immansueti, duri, crudi. Hæc vitia et opera interioris hominis ovina veste contegunt, i.e. actionibus, oblationibus, gestu, ceremoniis corporalibus, ita ut et sibi et aliis simplicibus boni et iusti videantur.”
On July 27 he speaks of the “darts” which the foes let fly from their ambush at those who are right of heart.
“Hæc ideo iam commemoro, quia iam accedo ad subtiliores homines et invisibiles transgressores præcepti Dei et in abscondito peccantes et sagittantes eos qui recte sint corde.”
In another sermon preached on the same day, speaking of the Pharisee and the Publican, he says:
“Credo quod pauci timeant se pharisæo similes esse quem odiunt; sed ego scio, quod plures ei similes sint.… Non præsumamus securi, quod publicano similes simus.”
In this sentence, and elsewhere, stress should not be laid on the use of the first person plural, as it is merely a rhetorical embellishment. The Pharisee is the self-righteous man; he bears “idolum iustitiæ suæ in corde statutum”; he refuses to be accounted a sinner, hence:
“incurrit in Christum, qui omnes peccatores suscepit in se. Et ideo Christus iudicatur, accusatur, mordetur, quandocunque peccator quicunque accusatur, etc. Qui autem Christum iudicat, suum iudicem iudicat, Deum violenter negat. Vide quo perveniat furens et insipiens superbia.”
This indeed, in itself, is all capable of a perfectly orthodox interpretation, not, however, if we take it in conjunction with all the circumstances. On Aug. 3, the preacher again inveighs against the “sensuales iustitiarii,” who hang on their works and observances: This is to remain