Sermons on the Song of Songs82 Sermon LXXXII. How the soul, while still remaining like unto God, loses by sin a portion of its likeness to him in its simplicity, immortality, and liberty
Sermon LXXXII. How the soul, while still remaining like unto God, loses by sin a portion of its likeness to him in its simplicity, immortality, and liberty
What think you, my brethren? Does it appear to you that we can go back and take up again the order of exposition from which we have digressed, since the affinity of the soul with the Word, to establish which was the object of the digression, must be now quite clear to you? We might do so, as it seems to me, only for one thing; that there still remains, as I feel, some little obscurity in the various parts of the expositions which have been given. I do not wish to steal anything from you. I do not willingly pass over anything that I think would be useful to you. How could I dare to do so, especially of those truths which I receive only in order that I may communicate them to you? I know a man who once, in the course of an address that he was making, held back some part of what the Holy Spirit suggested to him, not unfaithfully, but perhaps with a want of reliance on His aid for the future, with the purpose of reserving it for another occasion, that he might have something to say when treating on the same subject again; and that man seemed to hear a voice, which said to him: * As long as you shall withhold this you shall receive nothing else.' What if he had kept back this thought, not for the supply of 1 St. Bernard is here borrowing one of St. Paul's turns of phrase (2 Cor. xii. 2), and speaking of himself. This is declared by Coesar of Heisterbach, who, in his sermon for the Octave of Christmas, speaks thus: 1 One day he was treating upon 2. There is, then, among the various observations that have been made, something which may, I fear, be a stumbling-block to you, unless it be made very clear. And, if I do not mistake, there are some standing here to whom what I wish to say may be the occasion of some scruple. That threefold likeness to the Word, which we have assigned to the soul, or, rather, have observed that it was impressed upon the soul, do you remember that it appeared to us to inhere in it inseparably? Now, does not that seem to conflict with some statements of Scripture, as, for example, with this out of the Psalms: Man that is in honour and understandeth not is like the beasts that perish (Ps. xlix. 12, 20); and this: They changed their glory into the similitude of an ox that eateth grass (Ps. cvi. 20); and this, which is plainly stated in the Person of God: Thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself (Ps. L 21); and many others, which seem to assert with one voice that, after the commission of sin, the likeness to God in man was altogether effaced? What, then, shall we say to these statements? That these three qualities are not in God, and that therefore we must seek for others, in which consist the resemblance that the soul has to Him? or that they are indeed in God, but are not in the soul, so that in these respects it has no resemblance to God? or that, though they are in the soul, they are not in it necessarily, and therefore are not inseparable from it? God forbid that either of these alternatives should be the fact. These qualities are in God; they are also in the soul, and are in it always. Nor have we any reason to repent of what has been stated upon these points, since it is founded on certain and indubitable truth. But when the Scripture speaks of the unlikeness of man to God which has been brought about, it does so, not because that likeness which previously existed was effaced, but because another has been laid over it. The soul has plainly not put off its original form, but has put on over it one which is foreign to it. The latter is added, but the former is some subject, and a thought came to him which, though it would have been in lace at the time, he proposed to himself to reserve till the end, where he thought should be in want of matter, and he heard a voice saying to him, "If you keep back this, nothing else shall be given to you." ' 1 So truly was it,' says Manrique, 1 not he that spake, but God in him.' See on the same subject, Sermon in CatUic, xviii., n. 2.
The SOUL'S LIKENESS TO GOD not lost; and that which is subsequent may hide the earlier and natural lineaments of the soul, but cannot obliterate them. Thus it is said by the Apostle: Their foolish heart was darkened (Rom. i. 21), and by a prophet: How is the gold become dim, how is the most fine gold changed/ (Lam. iv. 1). The gold laments that it has become dim, but it still remains gold; its beautiful colour has changed, but the ground of the colour is not fundamentally changed. The pure and simple nature of the soul remains unshaken in its essential character, but it is concealed from view by a thick film of human fraudfulness, and pretence, and hypocrisy.
3. How incongruous is the mixture of duplicity with the natural simplicity of the soul! What an unworthy action to raise a structure so poor on a foundation so precious! It was with this duplicity that the serpent concealed his cunning purpose when, in order to deceive the first woman, Eve, he took upon himself the character of an adviser, and pretended to be her friend. It was with this that the first dwellers in the earthly Paradise, after they had been led into disobedience by him, endeavoured to conceal their nakedness and shame by the shelter of a leafy tree, by girdles of leaves, and by words of excuse (Gen. iii. 7, 8, 12, 13). From that time and thenceforward the poison of hypocrisy has spread deeply and widely, and has infested the whole of their posterity. Whom is there of ail the children of Adam who, I will not say wishes the entire truth in every instance to appear, but even suffers it to do so? Nevertheless, the fundamental truthfulness of the soul persists [in conflict with original duplicity in every soul, and confusion is increased by the simultaneous presence of the two; and its immortality also continues, but an immortality shadowed and rendered sombre by the encroaching clouds of the death which belongs to the body. For although it is not deprived of life, it is unable to claim the full benefit of that life for its body. But of the soul which does not hold fast its own spiritual life, what shall I say? For the soul that sinneth it shall die (Ezek. xviii. 4). Does not that twofold death into which it falls, render the immortality (of what kind soever it may be) which it still retains, gloomy and unhappy to the last degree? Add to this that the desires which it has for earthly things (which, indeed, all tend towards its destruction) render still more dense the clouds and darkness in which it is enveloped, so that a soul existing in such a state has, as it were, a countenance pallid and deathlike, nay, the very image of death. Why does not the soul, being immortal, desire things which are eternal and immortal like itself, so as to appear that which it really is, and to live that life for which it was intended? But it delights in and seeks for things which are quite contrary to these; it conforms itself to things which are mortal and perishable, by leading a life far degenerated from the nobleness of its nature, and blackens, as it were, the glory of its immortality by daily converse with, and preference for, things which are dingy and defiled. How can a longing desire for mortal things fail to assimilate the immortal to mortality and make 4. Consider, for instance, how Eve, by attaching herself to things that were mortal, though herself an immortal soul, soiled the glory of her immortality by the mould of mortal things. Since she was immortal, why did she not contemn things that were perishing and transitory, and content herself with those that were unchangeable and eternal, similar to her own nature? She saw, saith the Scripture, that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise (Gen. iii. 6). That beauty, O woman, that sweetness, that desirableness, is not thine; and if it belongs to thee because thou art in part made of the dust of the earth, is not thine alone, but thou hast it in common with all the living creatures of the earth. That which is truly thine is of another nature, and comes from another source; it is eternal, and comes from eternity. Why dost thou set upon thy soul another likeness, or, rather, a deformity which is strange to it? For what it desires to possess, that it fears to lose; and that fear is a kind of colour, which stains its free will, which hides it, and renders it like unto itself. How much more worthy of its origin would it be that it should desire npthing, so that it should fear nothing; and that, thus guarding its inborn freedom from servile fear, it should remain in its pristine beauty and strength! Alas! it is not so; its perfect hue has faded. Thou dost fly, and hidest thyself; when thou nearest the voice of the Lord God thou lurkest in a hiding-place. Why is this, but that Him whom thou didst once love, now thou dost fear; and that a slavish fear has taken the place of the beauty of thy freedom?
5. That necessity voluntarily incurred, and that law of contradiction imposed upon the members (of which I have spoken in another discourse), weighs upon the same liberty, and at the same time allures and enslaves by means of its own will, a creature free by nature; covers it with confusion and ignominy, so that it obeys, though unwillingly, the law of sin which is in its flesh. Because, then, it has neglected to guard the original nobleness of its nature by innocency of life, it has followed, by the just judgment of its Creator, that it is not stripped of the freedom which belongs to it, but clad with its <nvn confusion as with a mantle (Ps. cix. 29). Well is it said, as with a mantle, that is, a garment which is folded or doubled (diploide because while its liberty remains, that being necessarily inherent in the will, yet its manner of conduct, which is servile, imposes upon it constraint and necessity. The same thing may be remarked of the simplicity of the soul, as of its immortality; and if you observe closely you will find nothing in that also which is not covered, as it were, with a double mantle of likeness and unlikeness. Is not that like a doubled mantle, where deceit is not inborn, but is laid upon truthful- THE SOUL'S LIKENESS TO GOD ness, is attached and, as it were, sewn to it by the sharp needle of sin; as also death to immortality, and necessity to freedom? For this duplicity of disposition does not destroy the essential truthfulness of the soul, nor does death, whether it be the voluntary death of sin, or the necessary death of the body, disprove the immortality of the soul by its nature; nor, again, does the necessity which follows a voluntary servitude destroy the freedom of the will. Thus these evils are adventitious; they do not follow from the good gifts which are natural, but are superinduced upon them; they disfigure, without destroying them; and trouble their action, though they do not nullify it. Thence it is that the soul is unlike to God, and unlike even to itself; thence it is that it is compared unto beasts that perish, and made like unto them (Ps. xlix. 12, 20); thence it is that, as we read, they have changed their glory into the similitude of an ox that eateth grass (Ps. cvi. 20); thence it is that men, like foxes, have winding earths, as it were, of duplicity and fraud; and, as they have made themselves like unto foxes, shall have the destiny of foxes; for, according to the saying of Solomon, that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts: even one thing befalleth them (Eccles. iii. 19). Why should not one who has lived like the beasts have a death like theirs? He has attached himself to earthly things, and delighted in them, like the beasts; like the beasts also he must leave them. And there is still another point. What wonder is it that we should go forth from this life similarly to the beasts, since we come into it in a similar manner? Whence is it, except from their resemblance to the lower animals, that there is in human creatures so much ardour in the indulgence of the passions, so much pain in parturition? Thus it is that the human creature, in his conception and his birth, in his life and his death, is compared unto the beasts that perish, and made like unto them.
6. What shall I say of the fact that a creature who is free does not subdue appetite and rule it as a queen, but, on the contrary, follows and obeys it as a servant? Does not such a creature rank itself among animals without reason, and make itself like unto them whom their nature has not called to liberty, but has placed in a state of servitude, to follow and obey their lusts and appetites? Is it not with justice that God is revolted at being considered and represented as like unto a man such as this? And therefore it is that He says: Thou thoughtest [wickedly that I was altogether such an one as thyself; and declares, will reprove thee, and set thee in order before thine eyes (Ps. 1. 21). It is not for a soul that sees and knows itself, to think that God is like unto it, especially such a soul as mine, which is unrighteous and a sinner. For it is to such that the stern accusation is addressed: 4 Thou thoughtest, O wicked one not * O soul,' or ' O man/ that was altogether such an one as thyself But if the wicked one be set, as it were, before his own eyes, and made to stand face to face, if I may so speak, with the ghastly and discoloured countenance of his inner man, so that he cannot avoid beholding the manifold 7. When the soul discerns in itself two things so different and so opposed, how can it do otherwise than cry out, between hope and despair: Lord, who is like unto Thee? By so great an evil it is drawn towards despair, but by so great a good it is recalled towards hope. Thence it is that the more it is offended by the evil which it beholds in itself, the more ardently it aspires to the good which it also descries, and the more it desires to become wholly like unto Him in whose image it has been formed; that is to say, to be simple, upright, fearing God, and departing from evil. Why should it not be able to depart from that which it has been able to approach, or to draw near to that from which it has been able to withdraw? Yet for either of these movements, I must not omit to say, grace must be relied upon, not nature, nor even laborious effort. For it is wisdom that prevails over vice (Wisd. vii. 30), not nature nor labour. Nor is ground for hope wanting, for it is the Word to whom it turns for help. The noble relationship of the soul to the Word, and the enduring likeness which it has to Him, of which, during the last three days, I have been discoursing, is not barren or ineffective with the Word. He deigns to admit into the fellowship of His Spirit that which is like unto Him by nature. Like seeks like assuredly, according to the natural order. Listen to His voice as He calls to the soul:: Return, return, O Shulamite: return, return, that we may look upon thee (Cant. vi. 13). He would not look upon her while she was unlike unto Him, but when she shall be in His likeness will behold her, and admit her also to the vision of Himself. For we know that when He shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is (1 John iii. 2). Believe, then, that when it is inquired: Lord, who is like unto Thee? the words refer rather to a thing that is difficult than to one which is absolutely impossible.
8. Or, if you prefer to take it thus, it is a cry of admiration. Assuredly it is a likeness wonderful and admirable, which accompanies the vision of God, or, rather, it is that vision itself. For I understand this of the vision which is brought about by love, for in love is that vision and that likeness. Who does not stand amazed at the great love of God in recalling to Himself a soul by which He has been scorned? It is with justice, then, that that wicked one, who was represented in a former sermon as usurping to himself the like- THE SOUL'S LIKENESS TO GOD ness of God, is severely censured, since in loving iniquity he is not able to love either himself or God, as it is written: He that loveth iniquity hateth his own soul (Ps. x. 6, Douay). The iniquity, then, which is in part the cause of the unlikeness between God and the soul, being taken out of the way, there shall be between them a spiritual union perfect and entire, a mutual discernment and vision, a reciprocal love. When that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away, and there shall be between God and the soul a perfect and consummated affection, a full knowledge, a vision manifest, a firm union, an indivisible society, a perfect similitude. Then the soul shall know, even as also it is known (1 Cor. xiii. 10, 12); then shall it love even as it is loved, and the Bridegroom shall rejoice over the Bride, because knowledge and love are reciprocal between them. He is Jesus Christ our Lord, who is above all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
1. Quid vobis videtur? possumusne jam regredi ad exponendi ordinem unde digressi sumus; quia patet propinquitas Verbi et animae, pro qua utique demonstranda digressio ipsa facta est? Possemus, ut mihi videtur, nisi parum quid dubietatis in his, quae dicta sunt, adhuc residere sentirem. Nil furari volo. Non libenter praetereo quod vobis utile putem. Et quomodo id audeam, de his praesertim quae vobis accipio? Scio hominem aliquid aliquando inter loquendum ex his quae suggerebat Spiritus, etsi non infideli, minus tamen fidenti animo retentantem et reservantem sibi, ut haberet quod diceret denuo tractaturus; et ecce vox ad eum, ut quidem ei visum est: « Donec istud tenebis, aliud non accipies. » Quid si retinuisset, non providendo suae inopiae, sed fraternis profectibus invidendo? nonne merito et hoc ipsum, quod videbatur habere, auferretur ab eo? Quod quidem longe a servo vestro semper faciat Deus, sicut et semper fecit. Sic mihi jugiter abundare dignetur fons ille indeficiens sapientiae salutaris, quomodo sine invidia vobis communicavi, et refudi quidquid mihi infundere hactenus dignatus est ipse. Si ego vos fraudo, a quo jam non verear ipse fraudari? Ne a Deo quidem.
2. Est itaque in his quae dicta sunt aliquid, quod, ut vereor ego, offendiculum dare queat, si non complanetur. Et, ni fallor, sunt de hic stantibus, quibus scrupulum movit quod dicere volo. Trina illa Verbi similitudo, quam animae assignavimus, imo qua insignitam advertimus, recolitisne quod etiam inseparabiliter inesse illi visa fuerit nobis? Id quidem videatur aliquibus Scripturarum testimoniis obviare, ut verbi gratia, est illud in psalmis: Homo, cum in honore esset, non intellexit; comparatus est jumentis insipientibus, et similis factus est illis; et item illud: Mutaverunt gloriam suam in similitudinem vituli comedentis fenum, sed et quod aperte dictum est in persona Dei: Existimasti inique, quod ero tui similis: et pleraque alia, quae similitudinem Dei in homine post peccatum deletam concorditer asseverare videntur. Quid ergo dicemus ad haec? Tria illa in Deo minime esse, et sic alia quaerenda, in quibus similitudinem assignemus? aut esse quidem in Deo, sed non in anima, et ne sic quidem in his similitudinem inveniri? aut esse et in anima, sed posse etiam non inesse, ac per hoc non inseparabilia esse? Absit! Et in Deo, et in anima sunt, et semper insunt; nec est quod nos aliquid horum dixisse poeniteat, ita totum subnixum est indubitata et absolutissima veritate. Sed quod Scriptura loquitur de dissimilitudine facta, non quia similitudo ista deleta sit loquitur, sed quia alia superducta. Non plane anima nativam se exuit formam, sed superinduit peregrinam. Illa addita, non ista perdita est: et quae supervenit, obscurare ingenitam potuit, sed non exterminare. Denique: Obscuratum est insipiens cor illorum, ait Apostolus; et propheta: Quomodo obscuratum est aurum, mutatus est color optimus? Obscuratum aurum plangit, sed aurum tamen; mutatum colorem optimum, sed non fundamentum coloris evulsum. Manet in fundamento prorsus inconcussa simplicitas, sed minime apparet duplicitate operta humanae dolositatis, simulationis, hypocrisis.
3. Quam incongrue simplicitati duplicitas admiscetur! quam indigne tali fundamento talis structura committitur! Hujusmodi sibi versutiam serpens induerat, cum se, ut deciperet, consiliarium exhibebat, simulabat amicum. Hujusmodi quoque seducti ab eo paradisi incolae induerant sibi, cum pudendam jam nuditatem tegere conarentur, et umbra frondosi ligni, et frondium succinctoriis, et verbis excusatoriis. Quam late extunc et deinceps omnem posteritatem haereditarium hypocrisis virus infecit! Quem dabis de filiis Adam qui quod est, non dico velit, sed vel patiatur videri? Sed perseverat nihilominus in omni anima cum originali duplicitate generalis simplicitas, ut de collatione confusio augeatur: perseverat aeque immortalitas, sed fusca et tetra, irruente tenebrosa corporeae mortis caligine. Nam, etsi non privatur vita, vitae tamen beneficium suo corpori jam non sufficit vindicare. Quid, quod ne suam quidem spiritualem duntaxat vitam retinet sibi? Anima nempe quae peccaverit, ipsa morietur. Nonne morte ista duplici incursante, illa qualiscunque immortalitas, quam retentat, tenebrosa satis redditur, et misella? Adde quod appetentia terrenorum, quae quidem omnia ad interitum sunt, densat tenebras, ita ut in anima sic vivente nilla parte aliqua nisi pallida facies et imago quaedam mortis apparere cernatur. Cur non enim quae immortalis est, similia sibi immortalia appetit et aeterna, ut quod est appareat, et quod facta est vivat? Caeterum, contraria sapit et quaerit, et mortalitas sese degeneri conversatione conformans, immortalitatis candorem quodam mortiferae consuetudinis piceo colore denigrat. Quidni mortalium appetitus immortalem mortali similem, immortali dissimilem faciet? Qui tangit picem, ait Sapiens, inquinabitur ab ea. Fruendo mortalibus mortalitatem se induit, et vestem immortalitatis incidente mortis similitudine decoloravit, non exuit.
4. Evam attende, quomodo ejus anima immortalis, immortalitatis suae gloriae fucum mortalitatis invexit, mortalia utique affectando. Utquid enim, cum immortalis esset, mortalia non contempsit et transitoria, contenta sibi similibus, immortalibus et aeternis? Vidit, inquit, lignum quod esset pulchrum oculis, et aspectu delectabile, ac suave ad vescendum. Non est tua, o mulier, ista suavitas, ista delectatio, istaque pulchritudo: et si tua pro parte luti, non tua solius, sed communis cunctis animantibus terrae. Tua, quae vere tua est, aliunde, et alia est: nam aeterna est de aeternitate. Quid tu animae tuae aliam formam, imo deformitatem imprimis alienam? Enimvero quod delectat habere, id etiam perdere timet: et timor color est. Is libertatem dum tingit, tegit, et eam nihilominus sibimet reddit dissimilem. Quam dignius sua origine nihil cuperet, ubi nihil metueret, ac per hoc a servili timore isto ingenitam sibi defenderet libertatem, manentem in vigore et decore suo! Heu! non ita est! mutatus est color optimus. Fugitas, et latitas: audis vocem Domini Dei, et abscondis te. Cur hoc, nisi quia quem amabas times, et libertatis speciem forma servilis exclusit?
5. Sed et voluntaria illa necessitas, et contraria lex inflicta membris, de qua proximo sermone disserui, eidem incubat libertati, et liberam natura creaturam per propriam ipsius voluntatem, dum allicit, subjicit servituti, implens faciem ejus ignominia, ita ut vel carne serviat legi peccati, et non volens. Quia ergo naturae ingenuitatem morum probitate defensare neglexit; justo auctoris judicio factum est, non quidem ut libertate propria nudaretur; sed tamen superindueretur, sicut diploide, confusione sua. Et bene sicut diploide, ubi veste veluti duplicata, manente libertate propter voluntatem, servilis nihilominus conversatio necessitatem probat. Hoc de simplicitate, hoc de immortalitate animae advertere est: et nil tibi in ea, si bene consideres, apparebit, quod non sit istiusmodi similitudinis pariter et dissimilitudinis diploide adopertum. Annon diplois, ubi non innata, sed affixa, et quadam quasi acu peccati assuta est simplicitati fraus, immortalitati mors, necessitas libertati? Neque enim essentiae simplicitati praescribit duplicitas cordis; non naturae immortalitati mors, aut voluntaria peccati, aut necessaria corporis; non arbitrii libertati necessitas voluntariae servitutis. Ita bonis naturae mala adventitia, dum non succedunt, sed accedunt, turpant utique ea, non exterminant; conturbant, non deturbant. Inde anima dissimilis Deo, inde dissimilis est et sibi; inde comparata jumentis insipientibus, et similis facta est illis; inde quod legitur commutasse gloriam suam in similitudinem vituli comedentis fenum; inde homines, tanquam vulpes, duplicitatis et fraudis foveas habent, et quia pares vulpibus se fecerunt, partes vulpium erunt; inde juxta Salomonem, unus exitus homini, et jumento. Quidni similiter exeat, qui similiter vixit? More bestiali incubuit terrenis, morte bestiali excedet terris. Audi aliud. Quid mirum si similem sortimur exitum, qui et similem habemus introitum? Unde enim hominibus, nisi de similitudine bestiali, ille tam intemperans ardor in coitu, tam immoderatus dolor in partu? Ita homo in conceptu et ortu, in vita et morte comparatus est jumentis insipientibus, et similis factus est illis.
6. Quid, quod libera creatura sibi subditum appetitum non regit ut domina, sed sequitur et obsequitur ut ancilla? Nonne et in hoc se assimilat et annumerat caeteris animantibus, quae natura non in libertatem vocavit, sed condidit in servitutem servire suo ventri, appetitui obedire? Nonne tali merito confunditur perhiberi vel existimari similis Deus? Ideoque ait: Existimasti inique, quod ero tui similis; et infert: Arguam te, et statuam contra faciem tuam. Non est sese videntis animae, Deum existimare similem sibi, animae duntaxat, qualis mea est, peccatricis et iniquae. Ejusmodi namque arguitur: Existimasti inique, ait; et non dicit: Existimasti, anima; vel, existimasti, homo, quod ero tui similis. Sed, si statuatur iniquus ante faciem suam, et contra vultum quemdam morbidum putidumque interioris hominis sui sistatur, ut dissimulare aut declinare non queat impuritatem conscientiae suae, sed videat vel invitus sordes peccatorum suorum, vitiorum inspiciat deformitatem; nequaquam jam poterit existimare Deum fore similem sibi, sed quasi diffidens pro tanta dissimilitudine quam videbit, puto exclamabit, et dicet: Domine, quis similis tibi? quod quidem dictum pro voluntaria illa et novitia dissimilitudine. Nam manet prima similitudo: et ideo illa plus displicet, quod ista manet. O quantum bonum ista, quantumque malum illa! Ex mutua tamen collatione utraque res in genere suo plus eminet.
7. Cum ergo anima tantam in se una rerum distantiam cernit, quidni clamet, inter spem et desperationem utique posita: Domine, quis similis tui? Trahitur in desperationem pro tanto malo; sed revocatur in spem a tanto bono. Inde est ut quo sibi plus displicet in malo quod in se videt, eo se ardentius ad bonum, quod aeque in se conspicit, trahat, cupiatque fieri ad quod facta est, simplex et recta, et timens Deum, ac recedens a malo. Quidni recedere possit, ad quod accedere potuit? quidni accedere, a quo recedere potuit? Quod tamen utrumque dixerim de gratia praesumendum, non de natura, sed ne de industria quidem. Nempe sapientia vincit malitiam, non industria, vel natura. Nec deest occasio praesumendi: ad Verbum est conversio ejus. Non est apud Verbum otiosa animae generosa cognatio, de qua triduo jam tractamus, et cognationis testis similitudo perseverans. Dignanter admittit in societatem Spiritus similem in natura. Et certe de ratione naturae, similis similem quaerit. Vox requirentis: Revertere, Sunamitis; revertere, ut intueamur te. Intuebitur similem, qui dissimilem non videbat; sed et se intuendum praestabit. Scimus quoniam, cum apparuerit, similes ei erimus, quoniam videbimus eum sicuti est. Puta ergo de difficultate magis, quam de impossibilitate venire illam percunctationem: Domine, quis similis tibi?
8. Aut, si hoc magis probas, vox est admirantis. Admiranda prorsus et stupenda illa similitudo, quam Dei visio comitatur, imo quae Dei visio est; ego autem dico in charitate. Charitas illa visio, illa similitudo est. Quis non stupeat charitatem Dei spreti et revocantis? Merito iniquus arguitur ille, qui supra inductus est, Dei similitudinem usurpans sibi, cum diligendo iniquitatem, neque possit se diligere, neque Deum: sic enim habes: Qui diligit iniquitatem, odit animam suam. Facta igitur de medio iniquitate, quae eam quae ex parte est dissimilitudinem facit, erit unio spiritus, erit mutua visio, mutuaque dilectio. Siquidem veniente quod perfectum est, evacuabitur quod ex parte est; eritque ad alterutrum casta et consummata dilectio, agnitio plena, visio manifesta, conjunctio firma, societas individua, similitudo perfecta. Tunc cognoscet anima, sicut cognita est; tunc amabit, sicut amata est; et gaudebit sponsus super sponsam, cognoscens et cognitus, diligens et dilectus, Jesus Christus Dominus noster, qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in saecula. Amen.