Sermons on the Song of Songs

OF SPIRITUAL LILIES, THAT IS, GOOD WORKS, OF WHICH THE FRAGRANCE IS A RIGHT INTENTION, AND THE COLOUR A GOOD REPUTATION; AND HOW THE BRIDEGROOM BOTH NOURISHES THESE, AND IS NOURISHED BY THEM. ALSO OF THE UNITY OF GOD THE FATHER WITH THE SON, AND OF THE HOLY SOUL WITH GOD.

THE conclusion of the last sermon shall form the commencement of this. The Bridegroom, then, is a Lily, but not a lily among thorns, because He did not commit sin, and thorns signify sin. It is the Bride of whom He has borne His testimony that she is a lily among thorns (Cant. ii. 2), and therefore if she should say that she had no thorns, she would deceive herself, and the truth would not be in her. As for Him, He has declared that He is the Rose, indeed, and the Lily, yet not among thorns. Instead of this, He says: / am the Rose of Sharon, and the Lily of the valleys. He makes no mention of thorns, because He alone among men has no need to say: / am turned in my anguish, while the thorn is fastened (Ps. xxxii. 4, Douay). Therefore He is never without lilies, because He is always without faults, because He is wholly and always white and glistering, fairer than the children of men (Ps. xlv. 3). Do you, then, who listen to, or who read these words, take heed that you have in your soul, and in your life, lilies that grow and flourish, if you wish to have Him who dwelleth among the lilies dwelling in you. Let

the blameless whiteness of your character and actions, let the fragrance they exhale, bear testimony that all your occupations, all your impulses, all your desires, are lilies. For characters have, as it were, their colour and their odour; nor are colour and odour the same thing in spirit any more than in bodies. Colour has regard to the right intention, fragrance to the good reputation of actions. Ye Jmve made our savour to be abhorred in the eyes of Pharaoh and in the eyes of his servants (Exod. v. 21), said the Israelites, speaking of opinion. The intention of the heart, and the judgment of the conscience of the doer, give to an action its colour. Vices are black, and virtue white, and the conscience when consulted distinguishes between the one and the other. The Lord's declaration respecting the single eye and the eye that is evil (Matt. vi. 22, 23) holds good, because there are certain lines of division between whiteness and blackness, as between light and darkness. That which comes forth from a pure heart and a good conscience is therefore white, and is virtue; and if, furthermore, good reputation follows it, it is a lily, since neither whiteness nor fragrance is wanting to it.

2. And although good reputation does not render virtue more great, it, nevertheless, renders it fairer and more illustrious. If there be any spot upon the intention, it will not fail to appear also upon that which that intention has produced; for the fault of the root reappears in the branches. And on this account, whatsoever it be that a corrupted root shall produce from itself, not without communication of its own corruption, for example, discourses, actions, or prayers, even though they seem to enjoy public esteem, it is not entitled to be called a lily, because, though it has an appearance of fragrant odour, it is wanting in colour. For how can that be a lily which has upon it a spot of discoloration? Nor will reputation avail to make that a virtue which the consciousness of bad intention convicts of being a vice. Virtue, indeed, will be content with a good conscience, where good report cannot possibly follow; but the fragrance of reputation will not suffice to excuse the fault of a conscience that is stained. Yet a man of virtue will, as far as he is able, provide things honourable, not only before God, but also in the sight of men (Rom. xii. 17), that he may truly be a lily.

3. But there is a whiteness of the soul which comes of the forgiving mercy of God, as He declares Himself by the mouth of the Prophet: Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool (Is. i. 18). There is still another kind of whiteness with which a person clothes himself, who showeth mercy with cheerfulness. And if you consider the man charitable and gracious, who is described by the Psalmist, who showeth favour and lendeth (Ps. cxii. 5), will it not seem to you that this joy is, as it were, a whiteness and glory of kindness with which he is clad, and which appears as well upon his countenance as upon his work? On the contrary, when anyone gives with sadness and, as it were, by necessity, his brow and his harids are so far from being white, that they gather blackness from the feelings of his heart. And therefore God loveth a cheerful giver (2 Cor. ix. 7). Does He love one who gives reluctantly and sadly? He who looked favourably upon Abel because of the willing heart which was expressed by the brightness of his countenance turned His Face from Cain, whose countenance fell, doubtless with sadness and jealousy (Gen. iv. 4, 5). Consider, then, of what a nature must be the colour of sadness and jealousy for God to turn away His Face from it. A poet has expressed aptly and elegantly that white brilliance of gladness which colours a deed of kindness, when he says in its praise:

... 4 Super omnia vultus Accessere bonV..

Nor is it only the cheerful giver, but he also who giveth with simplicity (Rom. xii. 8), who is loved by God; for simplicity shows the whiteness of the soul. This I prove from the consideration of the contrary, for duplicity is a spot; nay, it is a stain. For what is duplicity but deceit and fraud? And he who acts deceitfully in the sight of God, his iniquity is found to be hateful (Ps. xxxvi. 2). Therefore it is that the man is called blessed unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile (Ps. xxxii. 2). The Lord has well expressed in few words these two spots upon the soul, a feigned sadness, and deceit: Be not as the hypocrites 1 of a sad countenance (Matt. vi. 16). The Bridegroom, being virtue, takes pleasure in virtues; being a lily, He abides willingly among the lilies; and being Himself of a pure whiteness, delights in those whose souls are white and pure.

4. Perhaps, also, this is the signification of ' feedeth among the lilies/ namely, that He delighteth in the whiteness and fragrance of virtues. Formerly, when He was in the Body, He was nourished with food in the house of Martha and Mary; he reclined, even in the body, among the lilies (I speak of them, for they were lilies), and at the same time was refreshed in spirit by the devotion and virtues of women. If, then, in that hour a Prophet, or an Angel, or some spiritual man, who was not unaware of the greatness of Him who there reclined, had entered, would he not have been lost in wonder at the condescension and familiar kindness shown by Him to those beings of pure mind and of modest, though earthly, body and of the weaker sex? and would he not have been able to bear true testimony, ' I have seen Him not only abiding, but also feeding, among the lilies?' It is thus that the Bridegroom is found to feed among the lilies in a twofold manner, namely, in flesh and in spirit I think, also, that He fed them in turn, but that was in spirit But how did He nourish them spiritually by whom He was physically nourished? Did He not strengthen the timidity of those pious women, cheer their humility, enrich and render fruitful their devotion? But if you have seen that to Him to be nourished is to nourish, now notice also that, conversely, to nourish others is to be nourished Himself. What did the holy Patriarch, Jacob, say: God, which fed me all my life long unto this day 9 (Gen. xlviii. 15). He is a good master of a household who takes care for those of his house, and more especially in troublous days, who gives food to their hunger, yea, feeds them with the bread of knowledge and of life, and thus nourishes them for life eternal. But thus feeding others, He is, as I think, Himself nourished, and that with the food which is most agreeable to Him, I mean, with our progress in goodness; for it is a joy to the Lord to see us strong and courageous in good.

5. Thus, then, it is that, when He feeds others, He is Himself fed; and when He is fed He feeds others; at once refreshing us with His spiritual joy, and being Himself rejoiced with our spiritual advancement. To Him my penitence, my salvation, indeed, I myself, are, as it were, nourishment. Does He not, according to the phrase of the Psalmist, eat ashes as it were bread? (Ps. cii. 9). I am that ashes, for I am a sinner, and He, spiritually speaking, feeds upon me; He feeds upon me when He reproves and convicts me of my sin; I am swallowed when I am taught and trained; I am cooked when changed, and digested when transformed; finally, I am made one with Him when I am conformed unto His likeness. Do not wonder at this: it is that we may be more closely united to Him that He both feeds on us and is our food. Otherwise, our union with Him would not be perfect; for if I feed upon Him, but He not upon me, it will appear that, though He is in me, I am not yet in Him. If, on the contrary, He feeds upon me, but I do not upon Him, it will appear that, though I am in Him, yet He is not also in me; and in either of the two cases there is not a perfect union between us. But if He so feeds upon me that I may be in Him, and I in turn upon Him that He may be in me, how complete and strong is the bond1 between us, since I am in Him, and He will, nevertheless, be in me.

6. Shall I make clearer what has been said by a comparison? Lift your eyes, then, to a truth of the highest order, which has much similarity, nevertheless, to that before us. If the Bridegroom Himself were in the Father in such wise that the Father were not in Him, or if the Father were so in Him that He was not in the Father, I venture to say that the union between them, if union it were, would stop short of being perfect. But now, as He is in the Father and the Father in Him, there is no defect in their union, but He and the Father are truly and Perfectly One. So, also, the soul, for which it is good to adhere to God (Ps. lxxiii. 28), does not regard itself as perfectly united to Him, until both He abides in it, and it in Him. Not that even then it may be said to be one with God, in the same manner as the Father and the Son are one, although lie that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit (\ Cor. vi. 1 7). This I have read, but that I have not read. I do not speak of myself, I who am a person of very small importance (nihil), but assuredly there is no one in his senses, no one, I say, on earth or in heaven, who would arrogate to himself that saying of the Only Begotten Son of God: / and the Father art One (John x. 30). And yet I, though I am but dust and ashes, do not hesitate to say, in reliance upon the authority of Scripture, that I am one spirit with God, if, that is to say, I have ever been convinced by certain experience, that I am joined to the Lord, after the likeness of one of those who abide in charity, and by this abide in God, and God in them, feeding upon God,1 and He upon them. For it is of such a union that, as I think, the words are said: He that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. What then? The Son says: I am in the Father, and the Father in Me: and We are One (John x. 30, 38), while, as for the man, he says: 4 1 am in God, and God in me, and we are one spirit.'

7. But is it the case that as the Father and the Son, that They may be the One in the Other, and so be One, reciprocally feed upon each other, so God and man mutually penetrate each other by a kind of reciprocal manducation, and thus exist, if not as one being, yet as one spirit? By no means. For in the one case and in the other the indwelling is not after the same manner, and the unity of each is different. [[In fact,2 the difference of unity, and the nature of that difference is indicated by the two words, unus and unum (that is, * one ' and 4 the same substance '). For the former does not apply to the union between the Father and the Son, nor the latter to that between God and man. You, if you are already instructed in this mystery, will, if you make use of this opportunity, become so still more fully; and you should remark prudently, that by unum is denoted the unity of Substance or of Nature, while by * unus 1 is indeed denoted a unity, but one of a kind very different, because the Essence and Nature of God is far other than that of man, while it is evident that the Essence of the Father and of the Son is One. You see that this union between God and man is not in the fullest sense a unity, at least, not if it be compared with that other unique and sovereign Unity. For how can there be complete unity where there is plurality of nature and difference of substance? And yet a soul that is joined unto the Lord is said to be one spirit with Him, and is so in fact; nor is the plurality of substances any bar to this unity, since it is brought about, not by a confusion of natures, but by an agreement of wills. It is in this sense that many hearts are said to be one, and many souls one, as it is written: The multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul (Acts iv. 32). This, then, as regards unity.

8. But what is that unity which does not come into being by the act of uniting, but which is from all eternity? Nor is it, like the other, produced by an act of mutual manducation, because it is not produced at all, but simply exists. It does not admit of conjunction, nor composition, nor any such thing, which is inconsistent with a perfect unity. To the Father and the Son, Nature, Essence, and Will, are not only one, but the same. For Nature, Essence, and Will, are Their Being and Substance. It must not, then, be said that the Unity, in which the Father and the Son are One, is a consequence following from their Natures, their Substances, or their Wills; it can in no sense be said to be caused or to come into existence, but it simply exists; in a word, it is not factitious, but original.]] The Father and the Son are the One in the Other. They are, in a manner which is not only ineffable, but also incomprehensible, capable of containing and being contained, but if They are capable of containing Each Other it is without Their being divisible; and if They are capable of being contained, it is without participation. For, as the Church sings in a hymn: ' In the Father the Son is wholly, and in the Word is the Father wholly.'1 The Father is in the Son, in whom He is always well pleased; and the Son is in the Father, of whom He is always the Begotten, and from whom He is never separated. Now it is by charity that man is in God and God in man, as says S. John: He that dwelleth in love dweUeth in God^ and God in him (1 John iv. 16). It is by this consent and oneness of will that they are two in one spirit, or, rather, are one spirit Do you perceive the distinction? It is not the same thing to be consubstantial, that is, of the same substance, and consenting, that is, concurring in the same will. Although, if you notice carefully, that difference in their unity is sufficiently indicated to you by the words unus and unum, since the former does not apply to the union of the Father and the Son, nor the latter to that between God and man. The Father and the Son cannot be said to be one [only], since the One is Father, and the Other is Son; yet They are declared to be, and are, one and the same Substance, because it is common to Both, nor has Each His singular Substance, On the contrary, God and man have not the same substance or nature, and, therefore, cannot be said to be unum. And yet, if they are attached to each other by the tie of love, they may, with perfect truth, be said to be one spirit. But that unity is brought about rather by the concurrence of wills than by the union of essences.

9. There is now made sufficiently clear (if I do not mistake) not only the diversity, but also the disparity, of these unities, the one existing in the same essence, and the other in diverse essences. What can differ more between themselves than the unity which exists between things of different kinds and between those of the same kind? The words unus and unum, as I have already said, mark the difference between the two kinds of unities, since by the word unum the essential unity between the Father and the Son is designated, and by unus, not this, but a mutual consent of affections and of will between God and man is so referred to. Nevertheless, it may very well be said that the Father and the Son are / one ' (unus), with the addition of some defining word; as, for example, one God, one Lord; and generally, with regard to all that relates equally to Each and not to One in particular. For Their Godhead or Their Majesty is no more diverse in Each than is Their Substance or Essential Nature; and all these, if you consider piously the matter, are not diverse in Them or divided, but are one. I have said too little: they are one and the same with Them. What shall we say of that unity in which, as we read, many hearts and many souls are one? I think that it does not merit the name of unity when compared with this, since it does not unite many things, but marks them singly as being one. Therefore that Unity, which is not brought about by any unifying act, but which exists from all eternity, is unique and supreme. Nor is it the effect of that spiritual manducation of which mention was made before, because it is not brought about, but it exists. Much less is it to be considered as due to any conjunction whatsoever of Essences or consent of Wills, for there is in it neither plurality of the one nor of the other. In Them, as has been said, there is one Essence and one Will; and where these are one there cannot be consent, nor composition, nor conjunction, nor any such thing. There must be at least two wills to unite in a common consent, and similarly there must be two essential existences for that consent to produce union. There is nothing like this in the Father and the Son, since there is in Them neither two Essences nor two [divergent] wills. These two things are in them but one, or, as I remember that I said before, these two things make but one in Them and with Them; and inasmuch as They abide Each in the Other, in a manner unchangeable1 as it is incomprehensible, they are truly and uniquely One. Yet if anyone wishes to say that between the Father and the Son there is consent, I do not contest this, provided it be understood, not of a union of Wills, but of a unity of Will.

10. And yet we think that God and man abide each mutually in the other, but in a manner far different from that just referred to, because their substances and their Wills are distinct, and they abide each in the other in a manner far different; that is, they are not blended as to substances, but consentaneous as to wills. And this union is to them a communion of wills and a conformity in charity. Happy is this union if you have had experience of it, even though, compared with that more perfect union just referred to, it seem to be nothing at all. It was the saying of one who had experienced this: // is good for me to draw near to God (Ps. lxxiii. 28). It is indeed a 1 lncom mutabilittr. Another reading is incompctrabiliter.

great good if you hold fast wholly to Him. Who, then, is it who perfectly does this except the person who, abiding in God as being loved by God, nevertheless draws God into himself by a reciprocal affection? Therefore, when God and man are mutually and perfectly attached (which is the case when they are mutually incorporate by close affection), I may without doubt say that by this God is in man and man in God. But man is indeed in God from all eternity, since he is beloved by God from all eternity, if, that is to say, he is of those who assert that He hath loved and accepted us in His dear Son before the foundation of the world (Eph. i. 4-6). But God is in man from the time that He is beloved by man. And, if this be the case, man indeed is in God even when God is not in man; but God is not in the man who is not in God. For although perhaps he loves for a time, he is not able to remain in the love of God if he is not loved of God; nor even, though loved, is he yet able to love Him. Otherwise, how shall that saying stand good: He first loved us? (1 John iv. 19). But when he who was loved before begins also to love, then man is in God and God in man. But he who never loves has plainly never been loved, and it is thus certain that he is not in God, nor is God in him. All this has been said to show the difference between that bond by which the Father and the Son are One, and that by which a soul which attaches itself to God is one spirit with Him, lest perhaps, when we read of the man who abides in love, that he abides in God and God in him, and also of the Son, that He is in the Father and the Father in Him, it should be thought that an adopted son of God enjoys the same prerogative as the Only Begotten.

11. These truths, then, having been made clear, let us return to Him who feedeth among the lilies^ for it was from that point that we started to make this digression; whether it has been of interest and value it is for you to judge. I have already, as it seems to me, given two explanations of this passage. I have said that the Bridegroom, who is Himself the virtue and Brightness [of His Father], finds nourishment in the virtues of those upon whom He has shed the brightness of sanctity; and also that he receives sinners to penitence in His Body, which is the Church; and that it was to unite them with Himself that He was Himself made sin, who did no sin, that the body of sin might be destroyed in which sinners had once been incorporated, and that they might become righteousness in Him, being justified freely by His grace.

12. A third explanation which occurs to me I proceed to lay before you, and I think that it will suffice, not only for the explanation of the passage, but for the ending of this sermon. The Word of God is truth, and this is the Bridegroom. This you know; listen, then, to what remains. When a person hears this [Truth] and does not obey it, it remains empty and, so to speak, barren; it is sorrowful, and complains that it has been brought forward to no good purpose. But if the hearer has obeyed it, will it not seem to you that the Word has grown and taken to itself a body, because action is joined to word, inasmuch as it is strengthened and reinforced by the fruits of obedience and the harvest of righteousness? Thence it is that He says in the Apocalypse: Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any man hear My Voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with Me (Rev. iii. 20). It seems that the Lord gives approval to this explanation where He says in a prophet that His word shall not return unto Him void, but shall prosper, and accomplish that whereto He has sent it (Is. lv. 12). 77 shall not return^ He says, unto Me void or barren, but as succeeding in all things; it shall be filled with the good actions of those who shall obey it in love. For, according to the usual manner of speaking, a word is said to be fulfilled when it has produced the effect intended by it; while, until it has done this, it is called empty and meagre and, so to speak, famishing.

13. But hear with what food the Word Himself declares that He is nourished. My meat, He says, is to do the will of Him that sent Me, and to finish His work (John iv. 34). This is the utterance of the Word Himself, and declares plainly that every good work is His nourishment; and, furthermore, that He finds it among the lilies, that is, among the virtues. That which is to be found, if it be so, beyond those limits, He who feedeth among the lilies will not touch, even though it seem to be, so far, good of its kind. For example, He will not accept alms from the hand of a robber or a usurer; nor, again, from the hand of a hypocrite who, when he bestows alms, causes a trumpet to be sounded before him that he may obtain the praise of men. He will by no means accept the prayer of him who loves to pray at the corners of the streets that he may be seen of men (Matt, vi. 2, 5). For the prayer of the ungodly will be abominable to Him (Prov. xxviii. 9). Without avail, also, will it be for one to offer his gift before the altar who is conscious that his brother has some cause of complaint against him (Matt. v. 23, 24). He had not respect unto the offerings of Cain, for the very reason that he was not well inclined towards his brother (Gen. iv. 5). As is testified by a holy prophet, He delighted not in the sabbaths and new moons and sacrifices of the Jews, so that He protested openly that they were abhorrent to Him, and asked: When ye come to appear before Me, who hath required this at your hand? (Is. i. 12). I believe that those hands had not the fragrance of lilies, and for that reason He who was wont to feed, not among thorns, but among lilies, disdained the gifts they proffered. Were not those hands filled with thorns of which He said: Your hands are full of blood f The hands of Esau were bristly, as if they had been covered with thorns, and therefore they were not admitted to minister to one who was holy.

14. I fear that there may be some among us also whose gifts the Bridegroom does not accept, because they have not the fragrance of the lilies. For if my own self-will is found, for instance, in the fasts which I make, the Bridegroom will not accept such fasting as that, because it savours not of the lily of obedience, but of the sin of my own self-will. The same thing is to be said, not only of fasting, but of silence, of vigils, of prayer, of reading, of manual labour, and, in short, of every observance of the monastic life, where there is found in it, not obedience to a superior, but the prompting of our own selfwill. I should consider that those observances, although good in themselves, are not to be numbered among lilies, that is, among virtues; but that the man whose services are of such a kind would hear from the Prophet the question: ' Is it such a service as this that I have chosen? saith the Lord ' (Is. lviii. 3-5); and he adds: ' In the day of your fast ye find pleasure/ Self-will is a great evil, since it causes your good works not to be good for you. Such works need to [be altered, and] become lilies; for He who feedeth among the lilies will not taste of anything which is defiled with self-will. Wisdom is everywhere; she passeth and goeth through all things by reason of her pureness, nor can any defiled thing fall into her (Wisd. vii. 24, 25). So, then, the Bridegroom loves to feed among the lilies, that is, in pure and clear hearts. But how long shall this be? Until the day break and the shadows flee away. This passage is full of shadows and of difficulties; let us not enter into the thick wood of this profound mystery, except in the full light of day. But now, as my sermon has been unusually prolonged, the day has drawn to a close, and we are obliged unwillingly to withdraw from these lilies. I have not hesitated to expatiate at greater length than usual, because the fragrance of these flowers prevents anyone from being wearied or annoyed. There seems but little remaining of the verse before us; but of that little the meaning is deeply hidden, as is the case with all other parts of this poem. But He who reveals mysteries will come to our help, as I trust, when we shall have begun to knock [at the door]; nor will He shut the mouths of them that speak of Him. Rather is He wont to open those that are closed. He is the Bridegroom of the Church, Jesus Christ our Lord, who is above all, God