Sermons on the Song of Songs71 Sermon LXXI. 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
Sermon LXXI. 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 1 Tutrix; another reading is, /tutrix.
Spiritual LILIES, THAT IS, GOOD WORKS 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... 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 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 1 Ovid, 'Metamor.; Bk. viiL, w. 677, 678.
Spiritual LILIES, THAT IS, GOOD WORKS 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 bond 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. 17). This I have read, but that I 1 Connexio; so read the earliest editions and many MSS. Others have: Erit ptrinde firma connexio et complexio ititegra.
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, 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: 41 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, the difference of unity, and the nature of that difference is indicated by the two words, unus and unum (that is, * one' and 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’ 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 1 One MS. adds ' after a certain manner *; but the words arc wanting in others, and, indeed, in the earliest editions.
2 The parenthesis that we have here is wanting in the MSS. of Citeaux, of St. Germain, and of Jumieges; but it is found in others, and in the earliest editions. As for the second and much longer one, which follows a little later on, and extends from the middle of n. 8 to the middle of if. 10, it is, on the contrary, wanting in those earlier MSS. but is found in the later ones. Both the one and the other are superfluous. This diversity is caused by St. Bernard having retouched the passage, so that the first parenthesis of the former edition seems to be the second of the later one. We leave the reader to judge.
Spiritual LILIES, THAT IS, GOOD WORKS 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.' 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 dwelleth 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 1 Hymn, pro Feria Stcund. ad Matutin.
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 lncom mutabilittr. Another reading is incompctrabiliter.
Spiritual LILIES, THAT IS, GOOD WORKS 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, 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 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
1. Finis praecedentis sermonis, principium hujus. Est ergo lilium sponsus, sed non lilium inter spinas, quoniam non habet spinas qui peccatum non fecit. Denique sponsam protestatus est lilium inter spinas; quoniam si dixerit vel ipsa, quia spinas non habeat, se ipsam seducit, et veritas in ea non est. Se vero florem quidem et lilium professus est, non tamen inter spinas. Magis autem: Ego, inquit, flos campi et lilium convallium. Et non est spinarum mentio, quod solus sit hominum qui opus non habeat dicere: Conversus sum in aerumna mea, dum configitur spina. Ergo absque liliis nunquam est, qui absque vitiis semper est; quia totus et semper est candidus, speciosus forma prae filiis hominum. Tu ergo qui haec audis vel legis, cura habere lilia penes te, si vis habere hunc habitatorem liliorum habitantem in te. Opus tuum, studium tuum, desiderium tuum: lilia esse protestetur moralis quidam rerum ipsarum candor, atque odor. Habent et mores colores suos, habent et odores. Neque enim in spiritibus id ipsum est color et odor, non magis quam in corporibus. Ergo de colore conscientia consultetur, de odore fama. Fetere fecistis odorem nostrum coram Pharaone et servis ejus, aiunt illi, dicentes de opinione. Porro colorem operi tuo dat cordis intentio, et judicium conscientiae. Nigra sunt vitia, virtus candida est. Inter hanc atque illa, conscientia consulta discernit. Stat sententia Domini de oculo nequam et lucido, quia inter candidum et nigrum certos fixit limites, et divisit lucem a tenebris. Quod ergo de corde puro et conscientia bona egreditur candidum est, et est virtus; si autem et bona fama secuta fuerit, et lilium est, quippe cui nec candor lilii desit, nec odor.
2. Porro virtus, etsi non propterea major, pulchrior tamen illustriorque efficitur. Quod si in conscientia naevus fuerit, nec quod ex ea prodierit, carebit naevo. Nam si radix in vitio, et ramus. Ac per hoc quidquid illud sit quod radix vitiata non absque traduce vitii ex se producat, verbi gratia, sermo, actio, oratio, etiamsi fama applaudere videatur, non est quod debeat lilium dici; quia etsi odor connivere videtur, sed non color. Quo pacto enim lilium cum impuritatis naevo? Nec sane fama valebit vindicare virtuti, quod esse vitium convicerit conscientia. Erit quidem virtus contenta candore conscientiae, ubi sequi non poterit odor famae: caeterum odor famae nec excusare sufficiet vitium conscientiae decoloris. Providebit tamen semper, quod in se est, homo virtutis bona, non tantum coram Deo, sed etiam coram hominibus, ut vere sit lilium.
3. Sed est etiam candor animae indulgentia Dei, ipso dicente per prophetam: Si fuerint peccata vestra ut coccinum, quasi nix dealbabuntur, et si fuerint rubra quasi vermiculus, velut lana alba erunt. Et est candor, quem sibi induit is qui miseretur in hilaritate. Etenim in intuearis illum, quem Propheta depingit jucundum hominem, qui miseretur et commodat, nonne is tibi videbitur de ipsa animi jucunditate indidisse candorem quemdam pietatis vultui pariter, et operi suo? Sicut e regione si ex tristitia et velut ex necessitate quis tribuat, non candidum plane, sed tetrum praefert manu et fronte colorem. Et ideo hilarem datorem diligit Deus. Nunquid et tristem? Profecto qui respexit ad Abel ob alacritatis candorem, avertit faciem a Cain, quia conciderat vultus [ alias, facies] ejus, utique a tristitia et livore. Adverte qualis color tristitiae seu invidiae sit, qui Dei a se avertit aspectum. Pulchre et eleganter in colorando beneficio candor jucunditatis laudatus est voce illa poetae: « Super omnia vultus accessere boni. » Nec modo hilaris dator, sed et qui tribuit in simplicitate, diligitur a Deo. Et simplicitas candor est. Probamus a contrario: nam naevus duplicitas. Parum dixi, macula est. Quid duplicitas nisi dolus. Sed enim qui dolose egit in conspectu Dei, inventa est iniquitas ejus ad odium.. Et ideo beatus cui non imputabit Dominus peccatum, nec est in spiritu ejus dolus. Pulchre Dominus paucis utramque notavit maculam, dolum, tristitiamque: Nolite, inquiens, fieri, sicut hypocritae, tristes. Sponsus itaque et cum sit virtus, in virtutibus complacet sibi; et cum sit lilium, libenter inter lilia commoratur; et cum sit candor, delectatur candidis.
4. Et fortassis hoc est quod dicitur pasci inter lilia, candore et odore virtutum delectari. Et quidem pascebatur olim corporaliter apud Mariam et Martham, recumbens etiam corpore inter lilia (Illas loquor, nam lilia erant), nihilominus spiritum refocillabat devotione et virtutibus mulierum. Quod si illa hora intrasset propheta, aut angelus, seu alius quivis spiritualis, tantum non ignorans quae majestas recumberet; nonne stupens dignationem et familiaritatem, quam illi esse conspiceret cum puris animis pudicisque corporibus, tamen terrenis et sexus infirmioris; merito testaretur: Quia vidi illum non modo commorantem, sed et pascentem inter lilia? Ita ergo secundum utrumque, carnem dico et spiritum, pasci inter lilia sponsus inventus est. Puto autem quod et ipse vicissim pasceret, sed in spiritu. Hoc ipso quod pascebatur, quomodo pascebat? Quomodo, inquam, confortabat timiditatem feminarum, jucundabat humilitatem, impinguabat devotionem? Sed si vidisti, quod pasci illi sit pascere; vide etiam nunc, ne forte et e converso pascere sit ei pasci. Domine, qui pascis me a juventute mea; ait sanctus patriarcha Jacob. Bonus paterfamilias, qui suorum domesticorum curam gerit, maxime in diebus malis, ut alat eos in fame, cibans illos pane vitae et intellectus, et sic nutriens ad vitam aeternam. At pascens, ita puto, nihilominus pascitur ipse, et quidem escis quibus libenter vescitur, profectibus nostris. Etenim gaudium Domini, fortitudo nostra.
5. Ita ergo et cum pascit pascitur, et cum pascitur pascit, simul nos suo gaudio spirituali reficiens, et de nostro aeque spirituali profectu gaudens. Cibus ejus poenitentia mea, cibus ejus salus mea, cibus ejus ego ipse. Annon cinerem tanquam panem manducat? Ego autem quia peccator sum, cinis sum, ut manducer ab eo. Mandor cum arguor, glutior cum instituor, decoquor cum immutor, digeror cum transformor, unior cum conformor. Nolite mirari hoc: manducat nos, et manducatur a nobis, quo arctius illi astringamur. Non sane alias perfecte unimur illi. Nam si manduco et non manducor, videbitur in me esse ille, sed nondum in illo ego. Quod si manducor quidem, nec manduco; me in se habere ille, sed non etiam in me esse videbitur; nec erit perfecta unitio in uno quovis horum. Sed enim manducet me, ut habeat me in se; et a me vicissim manducetur ut sit in me: quatenus integra firmaque sit connexio, cum ego in eo et nihilominus in me ipse erit.
6. Vis tibi per simile ostendam quod dicitur? Attolle oculos nunc in quamdam sublimiorem quidem convenientiam, similem tamen huic. Si ipse sponsus in Patre ita esset, ut non tamen in ipso Pater; aut ita Pater in ipso esset, ut non esset ipse in Patre: audeo dicere, et ipsorum citra perfectum unitas remaneret, si tamen jam unitas esset. Nunc vero cum et ipse in Patre, et Pater in ipso sit; non est quo claudicet unitas, sed vere perfecteque unum sunt ipse et Pater. Sic igitur anima, cui adhaerere Deo bonum est, non ante se existimet ipsi perfecte unitam, nisi cum et illum in se, et se in illo manentem persenserit. Non quia vel tunc unum dicatur cum Deo, sicut unum sunt Pater et Filius: quamvis qui adhaeret Deo, unus spiritus est. Legi hoc, sed illud non legi. Non dico de me, qui nihil sum, sed plane nemo, nisi demens, sive de terra, sive de coelo usurpabit sibi illam Unigeniti vocem: Ego et Pater unum sumus. Et tamen ego, licet pulvis et cinis, fretus quidem Scripturae auctoritate, minime istud dicere verear, quia unus cum Deo spiritus sum: si unquam tamen certis fuero persuasus experimentis, Deo me adhaerere ad instar unius illorum, qui in charitate manent, ac per hoc in Deo manent, et Deus in eis, manducantes Deum, et manducati a Deo. Nam de tali adhaesione puto dictum: Qui adhaeret Deo, unus spiritus est. Quid ergo? Dicit Filius: Ego in Patre, et Pater in me est, et unum sumus; dicit homo: Ego in Deo, et Deus in me est, et unus spiritus sumus.
7. Sed nunquid Pater et Filius ut sint in invicem, ac proinde unum, invicem se manducant, sicut Deus et homo mutua se quadam in sese manducatione trajiciunt, utique per hoc, etis non unum, unus certe spiritus existentes? [ alias, sint.] Absit! nec enim uno modo insunt sibi hi atque illi, sed neque una unitas utrorumque. [Denique innuitur tibi unitatum diversitas per unus et unum; quoniam nec Patri et Filio unus, nec homini et Deo unum poterit convenire. Tu, si sapis, occasione accepta eris sapientior, prudenter advertens, illic quidem per unum unitatem substantiae vel naturae; hic vero per unus aeque unitatem, sed ideo longe alteram, quia inter substantias et naturas, homini nempe et Deo, sua cuique et natura, et substantia est, cum Patris Filiique constet penitus esse unam. Vides illam nec unitatem esse, siquidem huic singulari summaeque unitati comparetur. Nam quomodo unitas, ubi numerus naturarum, substantiarum diversitas? Et tamen unus spiritus dicitur, et est cum Deo, anima adhaerens Deo; nec praejudicat rerum pluralitas unitati huic, quam facit non confusio naturarum, sed voluntatum consensio. Propter hanc quoque multa corda unum, et multae animae una dicuntur, sicut scriptum est: Multitudinis credentium erat cor unum, et anima una. Et haec ergo unitas.
8. Caeterum quid ad illam, quae non unitione constat, sed exstat aeternitate? Non plane illam quaedam, instar hujus, mutua manducatio facit, quia nec fit. Est enim. Sed nec conjunctio, vel quasi compositio, vel tale aliquid, quod unius non est. Est autem Patri Filioque natura, essentia, voluntas non modo una, sed unum. Hoc nempe est illis esse, quod naturam esse; hoc velle, quod esse, vel naturam esse. Non est itaque quod unitas, qua unum sunt Pater et Filius, dicatur fieri de naturis vel essentiis, vel voluntatibus, quia non sunt: non est quod dicatur vel fieri, quia est. Nec enim factitia est, sed nativa]. Sunt in sese Pater et Filius, non solum ineffabili, sed etiam incomprehensibili modo sui ipsorum capabiles pariter et capaces: sed sane ita capabiles, ut non partibiles; ita capaces ut non participes [ alias, participibiles]. Nam ut in hymno Ecclesia canit: « in Patre totus Filius, et totus in Verbo Pater. » Est Pater in Filio, in quo sibi semper bene complacuit; et est Filius in Patre, a quo ut nunquam non natus, ita nunquam est separatus. Porro per charitatem homo in Deo, et Deus in homine est, dicente Joanne, quia qui manet in charitate, in Deo manet, et Deus in eo. [Consensio quaedam haec, ut sint duo in uno spiritu imo unus spiritus sint. Videsne diversitatem? Non est idem profecto consubstantiale et consentibile. Quanquam, si advertisti, satis tibi per unus et unum, ipsarum quoque innuitur differentia unitatum; quoniam quidem nec Patri et Filio unus, nec homini et Deo unum poterit convenire. Non possunt dici unus Pater et Filius, quia ille Pater, et ille Filius est: unum tamen dicuntur et sunt, quod una omnino illis, et non cuique sua substantia est. Quo contra homo et Deus, quia unius non sunt substantiae vel naturae; unum quidem dici non possunt, unus tamen spiritus certa et absoluta veritate dicuntur, si sibi glutino amoris inhaereant. Quam quidem unitatem non tam essentiarum cohaerentia facit, quam conniventia voluntatum.
9. Patet, ni fallor, satis non modo diversitas, sed et disparitas unitatum, una in una, altera in diversis existente essentiis. Quid tam distans a se, quam unitas plurium et unius? Ita inter unitates, ut dixi, disterminat unus et unum, quod per unum quidem in Patre et Filio essentiae unitas, per unus vero inter Deum et hominem non haec, sed consentanea quaedam affectionum pietas designatur. Cum adjectione tamen etiam Pater et Filius sanissime dicuntur unus; verbi causa, unus Deus, unus Dominus, et quidquid aliud est, quod ad se quisque, et non ad alterum [ alias, alterutrum] dicitur. Siquidem non est illis diversa divinitas sive majestas, non magis quam substantia, vel essentia, vel natura. Nempe haec ipsa omnia, si pie consideres, non diversa seu divisa in illis, sed unum sunt. Minus dixi: unum sunt et cum illis. Quid illa unitas, qua multa corda unum, et multae animae una leguntur? Nec censenda, ut reor, nomine unitatis, comparata huic, quae non multa unit, sed unum singulariter signat. Ergo singularis ac summa illa est unitas, quae non unitione constat, sed exstat aeternitate. Nec sane hanc spiritualis illa praefata manducatio facit, quia nec fit. Est enim. Multo minus eam facere putanda est essentiarum qualiscunque conjunctio, seu consensio voluntatum, quia non sunt. Una enim illis, ut dictum est, et essentia, et voluntas; uni vero non est consensus, non compositio, non copulatio, aut tale aliquid. Duas esse oportet ad minus voluntates, ut sit consensus; duas aeque essentias, ut sit conjunctio sive unitio per consensum. Horum nihil in Patre et Filio, quippe nec essentias duas, nec duas habentibus voluntates. Una est utraque res illis; vel potius, ut praefatum me memini, unum duo ista in illis, unum et cum illis sunt; ac per hoc ipsi sicut incomprehensibiliter, ita incommutabiliter [ alias, incomparabiliter] invicem in se manentes, vere et singulariter unum sunt. Si quis tamen inter Patrem et Filium dicat esse consensum, non contendo, dummodo non voluntatum unionem, sed unitatem intelligat voluntatis.
10. Atqui Deum et hominem, quia propriis exstant ac distant et voluntatibus et substantiis, longe aliter in se alterutrum manere sentimus, id est, non substantiis confusos, sed voluntatibus consentaneos. Et haec unio ipsis communio voluntatum, et consensus in charitate. Felix unio, si experiaris; nulla, si comparaveris. Vox experti: Mihi autem adhaerere Deo bonum est. Bonum plane, si omni ex parte adhaeseris. Quis est qui perfecte adhaeret Deo, nisi qui in Deo manens, tanquam dilectus a Deo, Deum nihilominus in se traxit vicissim diligendo? Ergo cum undique inhaerent sibi homo et Deus (inhaerent autem undique intima mutuaque dilectione inviscerati alterutrum sibi), per hoc Deum in homine, et hominem in Deo esse haud dubie dixerim. Sed homo quidem ab aeterno in Deo, tanquam ab aeterno dilectus, si tamen ex illis sit qui dicunt quoniam dilexit et gratificavit nos in dilecto Filio suo ante mundi constitutionem; Deus vero in homine, ex quo dilectus ab homine est. Et si ita est, homo quidem in Deo est et quando in homine Deus non est; Deus autem in homine non est qui non sit in Deo. Manere enim in dilectione non potest, etsi forsitan ad tempus diligat non dilectus; potest autem nondum diligere etiam dilectus. Alioquin quomodo stabit, quoniam ipse prior dilexit nos? Porro cum jam etiam diligit qui ante diligebatur, et homo in Deo, et Deus in homine est. Qui autem nunquam diligit, constat quod nunquam dilectus est; ac per hoc nec ipse in Deo, nec Deus in eo est. Haec dicta sint ad dandam differentiam inter illam connexionem, qua Pater et Filius unum sunt, et illam qua adhaerens Deo anima, unus spiritus est, ne forte quia legitur de homine manente in charitate, quia in Deo manet, et Deus in eo; et item de Filio, quod nihilominus in Patre sit, et Pater in ipso; par praerogativa adoptati putaretur, et Unici.
11. His ergo absolutis, recurrendum nobis ad illum qui pascitur inter lilia, quia inde excursus hic factus est usque huc: utrumnam non otiose, vos judicabitis. Et jam quidem loci ipsius duos intellectus posueram, sive quod virtutibus pascitur candidatorum, qui virtus et candor est; sive quod peccatores recipit ad poenitentiam in corpore suo, quod est Ecclesia, pro quibus sibi incorporandis se ipsum fecit peccatum, qui peccatum non fecit, ut destrueretur corpus peccati, cui aliquando complantati fuere peccantes, essentque justitia in ipso justificati gratis.
12. Tertiam adhuc pono sententiam quae occurrit [ in aliis, Tertium addo qui occurrit]; et satis fore reor non modo pro loci explanatione, sed et pro fine sermonis. Sermo Dei veritas est, et ipse sponsus. Nostis hoc; audite caetera. Is cum auditur, et minime obeditur illi, vacuus interim et jejunus quodam modo remanet, omnino tristis et querulus, quod prolatus in vacuum sit. Si autem obeditum fuerit, nonne tibi verbum videbitur in quamdam excrevisse corpulentiam, quia verbo opus accessit, utpote refectum quibusdam fructibus obedientiae, justitiae frugibus? Inde est quod in Apocalypsi loquitur: Ecce sto ad ostium, et pulso: si quis audierit vocem meam, et aperuerit mihi januam, introibo ad illum, et coenabo cum eo, et ipse mecum. Videtur approbari hic sensus et apud prophetam sententia Domini, ubi dicit quod verbum suum non revertetur ad se vacuum, sed prosperabitur, et faciet ad quae misit illud. Non revertetur, inquit, ad me vacuum vel jejunum, sed quasi prospere in omnibus agens, saturabitur bonis actibus eorum, qui in dilectione acquiescent illi. Denique usu loquendi sermo impletus tunc dicitur, cum fuerit mancipatus effectui: quod videlicet tandiu inanis et macer, ac quodam modo famelicus sit, donec opere compleatur.
13. Sed audi ipsum quo se dicat cibo ali. Meus, inquit, cibus est, ut faciam voluntatem Patris mei. Verbum Verbi est aperte indicantis, esse suum cibum factum bonum; si tamen invenerit illud inter lilia, hoc est, inter virtutes. Alioquin si extra repererit, etsi bonus, quod in se est, videtur cibus, non tanget illum is, qui pascitur inter lilia. Verbi causa, non recipit eleemosynam de manu raptoris seu feneratoris; sed nec de hypocritae quidem, qui cum facit eleemosynam, facit tuba cani ante se, ut glorificetur ab hominibus. Sed nec illius orationem aliquo modo exaudiet, qui amat orare in angulis platearum, ut ab hominibus videatur. Nempe oratio peccatoris exsecrabilis erit. Frustra quoque offerat munus suum ad altare, qui conscius est sibi quod frater suus habet aliquid adversum se. Denique non respexit ad Cain munera, eo quod non recte ambularet cum fratre suo. Teste sancto propheta, etiam abominabatur sabbata, et neomenias, et sacrificia Judaeorum, ita ut manifeste protestaretur odisse ea animam suam, et dicebat: Cum veniretis ante conspectum meum, quis quaesivit ea de manibus vestris? Credo, non redolebant lilia manus illae et propterea respuebat munus ex illis qui pasci inter lilia consuevit, et non inter spinas. Quidni spinosas habebant manus, quibus aiebat: Manus vestrae sanguine plenae sunt Et manus Esau pilosae erant, spinosis similes; ideoque non sunt admissae, ut ministrarent Sancto.
14. Vereor ne et inter nos aliqui sint, quorum non acceptet munera sponsus, eo quod non redoleant lilia. Etenim si in die jejunii mei inveniatur voluntas mea, non tale jejunium elegit sponsus, nec sapit illi jejunium meum, quod non lilium obedientiae, sed vitium propriae voluntatis sapit. Ego autem non solum de jejunio, sed de silentio, de vigiliis, de oratione, de lectione, de opere manuum, postremo de omni observantia monachi, ubi invenitur voluntas sua in ea, et non obedientia magistri sui, id ipsum sentio. Minime prorsus observantias illas, etsi bonas in se, tamen inter lilia, id est inter virtutes, censuerim deputandas; sed audiet a propheta, qui ejusmodi est: Nunquid tale est obsequium quod elegi, dicit Dominus? et addet: In die bonorum tuorum inveniuntur voluntates tuae. Grande malum propria voluntas, qua fit ut bona tua tibi bona non sint. Oportet proinde lilia fiant, quae hujusmodi sunt, quia nihil omnino, quod propria inquinatum sit voluntate, gustabit is qui pascitur inter lilia. Sapientia est ubique attingens propter munditiam suam, et nil inquinatum in eam incurrit. Ita ergo inter lilia pasci amat sponsus, id est apud munda et nitida corda. Sed quousque? Donec aspiret dies, et inclinentur umbrae. Umbrosus locus est hic et condensus: non intremus silvam hanc profundi sacramenti, nisi clara luce diei. Jam enim disputante me longius, inclinata est dies; dum inviti abstrahimur ab his liliis. Nec sum victus prolixitate [ alias, veritus prolixitatem], cui fastidium omne detraheret odor florum. Modicum quid restare videtur de praesenti capitulo. At istud modicum reconditum nimis, sicut et caetera universa carminis hujus. Sed qui revelat mysteria aderit, ut confido, cum pulsare coeperimus: et non claudet ora loquentium se, cui familiare magis est reserare clausa, sponsus Ecclesiae Jesus Christus Dominus noster, qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in saecula. Amen.