Sermons on the Song of Songs

Observe, my brethren, how carefully the beloved Disciple steers here a middle course between the vicious carnal love and the affective spiritual love, distinguishing from both one and the other the charity which is active and salutary. From this he excludes the falsity of a deceitful tongue, without requiring, however, as an evidence of its possession, that savour of sweetness which belongs to the affection of wisdom.” “Let us love,” he says, “in deed and in truth.” He speaks in this manner because he knows that we are moved to the performance of good works rather by the impulse of vivid truth than by the attraction of affective charity. “He set charity in order in me,” exclaims the Spouse. But is it affective charity or effective? Both surely, yet in opposite ways. For whereas the latter loves best what is low, the former prefers what is high. It cannot be questioned, for example, that in well-ordered affective charity the love of God takes precedence of the love of one’s neighbour, and as amongst men, the more perfect are preferred to the less perfect, heaven is preferred to earth, eternity to time, the soul to the body. But well-regulated active charity moves in the inverse order, if not always, at least as a rule. For we feel ourselves pressed with greater solicitude and occupy ourselves more frequently in what concerns our neighbour than in the things appertaining to God; we show more care and assiduity in assisting the weak brother than him that is stronger; by the laws of humanity and the very necessity of our condition we pay more attention to the peace of earth than to the glory of heaven; we are so taken up with the worries of temporal affairs that we can scarcely give a thought to the interests of eternity, the wants of the soul receive little consideration, whereas we are all but constantly ministering to the needs of the body; “and such as we think to be the less honourable members of the body about these we put a more abundant honour,” as the Apostle speaks. Thus do we fulfil in a manner the word of the Lord Who said, “So shall the last be first and the first last.” Who can deny that in prayer we converse with God? Yet how often are we not obliged to interrupt and abandon that exercise at the bidding of charity, for the sake of those who need the help of our words or works! How often are we not compelled in the interests of piety to exchange the repose of pious contemplation for the turmoil of worldly affairs! How often without prejudice to conscience do we not put aside our spiritual book in order to devote ourselves to manual labour! Nay, how often do we not find in the necessity of looking after our temporal concerns more than sufficient reason for intermitting even the celebration of the Holy Mysteries! Surely a preposterous order. But necessity recognises no law. Effective charity thus pursues its own course, “beginning from the last,” according to the command of the Father of the family. That it is just and pious we must certainly acknowledge, seeing that it has no respect of persons, and considers not so much the worth of objects as the necessities of men.

The case is very different with affective charity, which begins not from the last, as the other, but from the first. For it is that wisdom by which we value and esteem things in accordance with the worth and merit of each, so that what possesses the highest intrinsic perfection attracts our affection most strongly; what has the less high, less; and what has the lowest, least. Such is the order demanded by the charity of truth; whereas the contrary is observed by the truth of charity. For it is evidently required by the truth of charity that they whose needs are greatest should be the first attended to; whilst, on the other hand, the charity of truth is then made manifest when the affection of the will follows the same order as the judgment of the reason. Therefore, my brother, if thou lovest “the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with all thy strength;” and if with a more ardent affection, lifting thyself higher than the mere love of divine love which contents effective charity, thou hast already arrived at the end whereto this is but the means, so that thou art now all inflamed with holy fire from thy proximity to the Godhead, having received the fulness of the Spirit—if thou hast attained to this, certainly God will give thee now an appreciation of Himself, which, if not worthy of His perfection—for no created intellect can form an adequate idea of that—shall at least be proportionate to thy limited capacity. Then thou shalt also esteem thyself at thy proper value. For thou shalt clearly understand that thou hast nothing at all in thyself which could found a title to even thine own love, except that, and in so far as, thou art God’s. I mean to say, thou shalt ascribe to Him exclusively whatever thou mayst find in thyself deserving of love. Thou shalt then, I repeat, value thyself at thy real worth, since by the very experience of the love and regard thou shalt feel for thyself, it will become plain to thee that thou hast absolutely no right to be loved, even by thyself, save only for His sake without Whom thou art nothing.

As for thy neighbour, whom thou art plainly obliged to love as thou lovest thyself, in order to appreciate him as he deserves, thou must estimate his worth not otherwise than as thou hast determined thine own. For he is what thou art, that is, a man. Consequently, since thou lovest thyself only for the reason that thou lovest God, it follows that thou wilt love equally with thyself all who equally love God. But the man who hates thee, by that fact does not love God, and is therefore nothing. Hence thou canst not love him as thyself, who art something, because of thy love for God. Nevertheless, thou mayst love him in order to excite him to love. There is a great difference between loving a man because he loves God, and loving him in order to lead him to the love of God. Therefore, if thou wouldst have an esteem for thine enemy, it will be necessary to appraise him not according to what he actually is, that is, as nothing, but according to what he may become, which, as being still uncertain, we may consider as next to nothing. But if we have certitude with regard to any creature that he is never to be restored to the love of God, such a one must be estimated, not according to what he may become and as next to nothing, but according to what he now is, and as nothing absolutely; since it is his destiny to remain for ever nothing. So far from being obliged to love one thus excluded eternally from the charity of God, we have rather the duty to hate him, conformably to what is written, “Have I not hated them, O Lord, that hated Thee, and pined away because of Thy enemies”? But this is the sole exception to the law of love. For the rest, charity, which is particularly jealous of its rights herein, allows us to leave no man, even our bitterest enemy, without some little degree of affection. “Who is wise and will understand these things?”