Sermons on the Song of Songs4 Sermon IV
Sermon IV
2. Let me repeat to you more plainly why I have spoken of the first and the second of these under this name. We all know that a kiss is a sign of peace. Now if, as the Scripture declares, our iniquities separate between us and our God (Is. lix. 2), let that be taken away which interposes between us, and then there is peace. When, then, we make satisfaction so that we are reconciled with God by the taking away of the sin which separates us, what else can I call the pardon which we receive except a kiss of peace? Now, that kiss cannot be imprinted elsewhere than upon the Feet; for the satisfaction, which is the remedy for a transgression of the law of God, which arose from pride, ought to be humble and shame-faced.
3. But when we are endowed with fuller grace, and in a manner, so to speak, more familiar, and so are enabled to lead a life purer and more worthy of God, we begin to lift up our heads from the dust with greater confidence, in order to kiss, as is usual, the hand of our benefactor, provided that we seek, not our own glory, but that of our Creator, in the good things we have received, and provided also that we ascribe His gifts to Him, and not to ourselves. For otherwise, if instead of glorying in the Lord you glory in yourself, you are plainly shown to be kissing, as it were, your own hand, not the Hand of God; and this, according to the saying of the blessed Job, is a very great iniquity, and the denial of God who is above (Job xxxi. 28). If, then, following the testimony of Scripture, to seek one's own glory is, as it were, to kiss one's own hand, it follows that he who gives glory to God is said, not unfitly, to kiss the Hand of God. We see that it is thus even among men, that slaves are accustomed to kiss the feet of their offended lords when they are asking pardon of them for their faults; and those who are poor kiss the hands of the rich when they have received assistance from them.
4. But as God is a Spirit, a pure Substance, not distinguished into parts or members, there will be, perhaps, someone who cannot at all accept what I have said of Him; but will demand of me that I should show to him the Hands and the Feet of God, and so justify what I have said upon the kiss of the hand or foot. But if I, in my turn, shall become a questioner, what will he reply to me with regard to the mention in Scripture of * the kiss of His Mouth'? For these [parts of a body either exist together, or if the one is wanting, the others are wanting also. We say, then, that God has a Mouth, wherewith * He teaches man knowledge'; and a Hand, wherewith * He giveth food to all flesh'; and Feet, for which ' the earth is His footstool/ and at which the sinners of the earth ' fall down low upon their knees.' All these, then, God has; but in making that assertion, we reason, as it were, from effects, for it is not by His Nature that He has these. A confession, full of penitence and shame, finds in God that at which [the sinner may fall down and humble himself, an ardent devotion finds a source of refreshment and renewal, and a joyful contemplation an object of safe repose in its ecstasies. He who governs all things is all things to all His creatures; yet, to speak with accuracy, He is not THE THREEFOLD PROGRESS OF THE SOUL any of all these things. If we consider Him as He is in Himself, He dwelleth in the Light that no man can approach unto (1 Tim. vi. 16), His * peace passeth all understanding' (Phil. iv. 7), His wisdom is infinite (Ps. cxlvii. 5), there is no end of His greatness (Ps. cxlv. 3), and no man can see Him and live (Exod. xxxiii. 20). Not that He is far from everyone of us, for He is the Principle of Being (Esse) of all things that exist, and without Him they would fall back into nothingness; but yet, to make a statement still more wonderful, though nothing is more certainly present than He, nothing is more incomprehensible. For what can be more surely present to everything than its own Principle of Being? Yet what can be more incomprehensible to each individual than the Principle of Being of all things? But when I say that God is the Principle of Being to all things, it is not that they are the same being as He; but it is that all things proceed from Him, subsist by Him, and are in Him (Rom. xi. 36). He, then, that has created all things is the Principle of Being to all things created; but with regard to Cause and Principle, not with regard to substance. In such a manner it is that the Divine Majesty condescends to all His creatures. He is assuredly the Principle of Being to them all—He is life to all that live; and, furthermore, He is Light to them who have the use of reason, Virtue to them who use their reason rightly, and, finally, He is Glory to them who triumph [in the probation of this life].
5. Finally, in the creation of all these things, in governing them, administering them, in giving them motion and growth, in renewing and in strengthening them, He has no need of any bodily instruments, since He created all things, both bodies and spirits, by His mere word. Souls have need of bodies and of bodily senses, by which they become known the one to the other, and are enabled to act the one upon the other. But it is not thus with the Almighty God; for from the volition of His Will alone follows promptly the effect He bids, whether it be in the creation of things, or in the ordering of them according as He shall please. What He wills He carries into effect, and to the fullest extent of His good pleasure; nor in performing it has He any need to employ bodily organs. What do you suppose that to have relation with those things which He has Himself created He requires the assistance of bodily senses? Of all things that exist, nothing hides itself or escapes from His light, which is everywhere present; nor has He any need, in order to take knowledge of anything, to make use of the ministry of any sense. Not only does He have knowledge of all things without Himself having body, but also without body He makes Himself known to those who are of pure heart. I am repeating the same truth in different words that you may understand it the better; but as the little time remaining is insufficient for finishing the subject, it will perhaps be better to defer its farther consideration until the morrow.
Digiti zed by G00gle
1. Triplicem quemdam animae profectum sub nomine trium osculorum sermo hesternus complexus est. Nunquid excidit vobis? Is mihi hodierna disputatione prosequendus erit, prout parare dignabitur in dulcedine sua pauperi Deus. Diximus, si recolitis, illa oscula sumi ad pedes, ad manum, ad os, singula singulis referentes. In primo sane primordia dedicantur nostrae conversionis; secundum autem proficientibus indulgetur: porro tertium sola experitur, et rara perfectio. Ab hoc solo, quod ultimum positum est, sumpsit exordium Scriptura ista quam tractare suscepimus, et ipsius causa reliqua duo a nobis adjuncta sunt. An vero necessarie vos judicabitis. Puto enim, facies ipsa eloquii facile admonet et ista requirere. Mirum vero si non et vos advertitis, oportere revera esse aliud, sive alia oscula, a quibus illud oris distinguere voluit qui dixit: Osculetur me osculo oris sui. Cur enim, cum sufficere poterat dixisse simpliciter, osculetur me; praeter morem tamen usumque loquendi, distincte et signanter adjecit, osculo oris sui, nisi ut ostenderet ipsum, quod petebat osculum, summum esse, non solum? Nonne denique ita invicem loquimur: Osculare me; vel: Da mihi osculum: et nemo sequitur ut dicat Ore tuo, sive, Osculo oris tui? Quid? alterutrum osculari parantes, tuum versus invicem ora tendimus, quae tamen ab invicem non requirimus nominatim? Denique qui narrat, verbi gratia, a Domino susceptum in osculo proditorem: Et osculatus est, ait, eum; nec addidit: Ore suo, vel, Osculo oris sui. Sic nimirum omnis et qui scribit, et qui loquitur consuevit. Sunt ergo hi tres animarum affectus, sive profectus, expertis duntaxat satis noti et manifesti, cum aut de actis malis indulgentiam, aut de bonis agendis gratiam, aut ipsius etiam indultoris et benefactoris sui praesentiam, eo quidem modo quo in corpore fragili possibile est, obtinent intueri.
2. Caeterum primum et secundum qua ratione oscula nominaverim, manifestius accipite. Osculum, pacis indicium esse omnes novimus. Porro autem si, ut Scriptura loquitur, peccata nostra separant inter nos et Deum, tollatur de medio quod interest, et pax est. Cum ergo satisfacimus, ut, ablato quod separat peccato, reconciliemur; indulgentiam quam recipimus, quid nisi quoddam osculum dixerim pacis? Idque interim non alibi, quam ad pedes sumendum. Humilis quippe et verecunda debet esse satisfactio, qua emendatur superba transgressio.
3. At cum etiam ad vivendum emendatius, Deoque dignius conversandum, placita quadam amplioris gratiae familiaritate donamur; ampliori fiducia caput jam levamus de pulvere, largitoris, ut assolet, manum osculaturi; si tamen de accepto munere non nostram, sed auctoris gloriam quaerimus, eique sua dona, et non nobis ascribimus. Alioquin si in te, et non magis in Domino gloriaris, propriam profecto et non Domini manum osculari convinceris: quod, juxta beati Job sententiam, est iniquitas maxima, et negatio in Deum (Job XXXI, 28). Si ergo, ad Scripturae testimonium, propriam gloriam quaerere, propriam est osculari manum; profecto qui dat gloriam Deo, Dei dicitur non incongrue manum osculari. Et in hominibus quidem ita esse videmus, servos videlicet offensorum dominorum osculari solere pedes, cum ab ipsis veniam petunt; et pauperes divitum manus, cum ab eis munus accipiunt.
4. Verum quia spiritus est Deus, et nullis simplex illa substantia membris distincta corporeis; erit forsan qui nullatenus de illo recipiat tale aliquid, sed a me sibi Dei manus vel pedes flagitet demonstrari, sicque probari quod de osculo pedum manusve definio. Sed quid, si et ego vicissim ab ipso meo sciscitatore de ore quoque Dei requisiero, quatenus quod de oris osculo Scriptura loquitur, ad Deum pertinere demonstret? Nempe aut cum isto simul et illa habet, aut cum illis pariter et isto caret. Sed enim et os habet Deus, quo docet hominem scientiam; et manum habet, qua dat escam omni carni; et pedes habet, quorum terra scabellum est, ad quos nimirum peccatores terrae conversi atque humiliati satisfaciunt. Haec, inquam, habet Deus omnia per effectum, non per naturam. Invenit profecto apud Deum et verecunda confessio, quo se humiliando dejiciat; et prompta devotio, ubi se innovando reficiat; et jucunda contemplatio, ubi excedendo quiescat. Omnia omnibus est qui omnia administrat, nec quidquam est omnium proprie. Nam, quod in se est, lucem habitat inaccessibilem, et pax ejus exsuperat omnem sensum; et sapientiae ejus non est numerus, et magnitudinis ejus non est finis; nec potest eum videre homo ut vivat. Non quod longe ab unoquoque sit qui esse omnium est, sine quo omnia nihil: sed, ut tu plus mireris, et nil eo praesentius, et nil incomprehensibilius. Quid nempe cuique rei praesentius, quam esse suum? Quid cuique tamen incomprehensibilius, quam esse omnium? Sane esse omnium dixerim Deum, non quia illa sunt quod est ille; sed quia ex ipso, et per ipsum, et in ipso sunt omnia. Esse est ergo omnium quae facta sunt ipse factor eorum, sed causale, non materiale. Tali proinde modo dignatur illa majestas suis esse creaturis, omnibus quidem quod sunt; animantibus autem quod et vivunt; porro ratione utentibus lux, recte vero utentibus virtus, vincentibus gloria.
5. Et in his omnibus creandis, gubernandis, administrandis, movendis, promovendis, innovandis, firmandis, nullis corporeis indiget instrumentis, qui omnia solo verbo et corpora creavit, et spiritus. Animae corporibus et corporeis egent sensibus, quibus sibi invicem innotescant, et valeant. At non ita omnipotens Deus, qui de sola voluntate celeris suppetit efficientia tam creandis rebus, quam ordinandis prout voluerit. Valet qui vult, quantum vult, et absque corporalium officio, obsequiove membrorum. Quid? ad intuenda quae condidit ipse, putas sibi requirat corporei sensus adjutorium? Nihil omnium omnino latet, aut effugit lucem ubique praesentem; nec tamen ut agnoscat aliquid, necessarium habet renuntiantis sensus ministerium. Nec solum universa noscit sine corpore, sed et innotescit mundis corde sine corpore. Dico autem idem latius, ut planius fiat. Sed forte quia finiendi jam sermonis angustia non admittit, consilii magis est ut in crastinum differamus.