Sermons on the Song of Songs

But as regards God and the soul, since they subsist and are distinguished with their own proper wills and essences, we must hold that their mutual indwelling is entirely different from the divine circuminsession, and results not from a commingling of natures but from a concord of wills. The unity between them, therefore, is nothing more than the union of wills, the union of charity. It is a blissful unity to experience in oneself, yet unworthy to be called unity, if compared to the unity of the Divine Persons. The Psalmist knew by experience what this unity was when he exclaimed, “It is good for me to adhere to my God.” Yea, very good, provided I adhere to Him perfectly. But where is the man that perfectly adheres to his God, unless it is he who, abiding in God as being loved by God, at the same time draws God into himself by loving Him in return? When, therefore, God and man are completely united to each other, as they are in truth by being incorporated in each other, so to speak, by a perfect, intimate, and mutual love, then I shall have no hesitation in affirming that God abides in man and man in God. Man, however, has abode in God from everlasting, because from everlasting he has been loved by God,—if yet he be one of those who can say with the Apostle, “He hath loved and graced us in His beloved Son before the foundation of the world”; whilst God only begins to abide in man at the moment when He begins to be loved by man. If such is the case, it follows necessarily that man may abide in God even when God does not abide in man. But God does not abide in any man who does not abide in Him. For if a man is not loved of God with the love of election, he may indeed love God for a time, but certainly he cannot abide in love. On the other hand, it is possible for one to be loved of God without as yet loving Him in return. Otherwise how can it be true what the Evangelist says, “He hath first loved us”? But when he who has been prevented by love begins at last to reciprocate that love, then, I say, man abides in God and God in man. But as for him who never loves God, it is manifest that he is never loved by God. Consequently, he never abides in God nor God in him. I have spoken all this with the purpose of demonstrating the difference between the unity whereby the Father and the Word are one in Nature, and that which makes God and the soul that is joined to Him one spirit. For if this distinction is not borne in mind, we shall be in danger of regarding the prerogative of the adoptive son as equal to that of the Only-Begotten; because, just as we read of the Word that He is in the Father and the Father in Him, so likewise is it written of the man who abides in charity, that “he abideth in God and God in him.”

Having said all I wanted to say on this subject, I must now return to Him “Who feedeth among the lilies,” because it was this feeding that occasioned the digression which has led me so far out of my course. As to whether or not the digression was necessary, it is for you, my brethren, to decide. I have already proposed for your consideration two expositions of this passage. I have interpreted the feeding among the lilies to mean either that the Beloved, as being the “Virtue of God,” and the “Splendour of His glory,” finds His delight in the virtues of the innocent: or that in His mystical body, which is the Church, He receives sinners to pardon, to incorporate whom in Himself “He was made sin” although “He made no sin”; so “that the body of sin might be destroyed,” in which by their sins they were once “planted together,” and that from sinners they might be rendered righteous, “being justified freely by His grace.”

I shall now submit to your judgment yet another interpretation, which has suggested itself to my mind. It explains the text satisfactorily, I think, and shall also serve to bring this discourse to a conclusion. The Word of God is Truth, He is also the Bridegroom. You are aware of this. Now attend to what follows. When this Word is heard but not heeded, He remains empty and hungry, as it were, and becomes very sad and querulous, for that He has been uttered to no profit or advantage. On the other hand, let compliance be yielded, and now does He not seem to you to have grown, in a certain sense, large and corpulent, as if He had fed Himself full on the fruits of obedience and the produce of justice, because hearing has been followed by action? Hence we hear Him in the Apocalypse saying to us, “Behold I stand at the gate and knock. If any man shall hear My voice and open to Me the door, I will come unto him, and will sup with him, and he with Me.” This interpretation is also supported, as it seems, by the words of the Lord, where He says through His Prophet Isaias, speaking of the Eternal Word, “My Word, Which shall go forth from My Mouth, shall not return to Me void, but It shall do whatsoever I please, and shall prosper in the things for which I sent It.” Mark the expression, “It shall not return to Me void.” As if He should say, “My Word shall not return to Me hungry, but, prospering in all things, He shall be filled with the virtuous actions of those who will obey Him from love.” Even in ordinary human speech, our words are then said to be fulfilled (impletus) when they have been united to action. As if it were intended to imply that so long as they remain unwedded to deeds, they are empty and lean, and, in a sense, suffering from hunger.

But listen to the Divine Word Himself telling us with what kind of food He is nourished. “My meat,” He says, “is to do the will of Him That sent Me.” Here, my brethren, you have the word of the Word plainly indicating that good works are His food, if yet He can find them among the lilies, that is to say, among the virtues. For He Who only “feedeth among the lilies” of the virtues, will not so much as touch any food He may discover apart from them, no matter how good it appears. Thus, for instance, He will not accept an alms-deed from the hand of the robber or the usurer, no, nor even from the hand of the hypocrite, who causes the trumpet to sound before him, whenever he gives an alms, “that he may be honoured by men.” Neither will He ever hear the prayer of them “who love to pray in the corners of the streets that they may be seen by men.” For the prayer of the transgressor “shall be an abomination” to Him. Vainly also dost “thou offer thy gift at the altar” if “thou remember that thy brother hath anything against thee.” The Lord had no regard for the offerings of Cain. Why? Because he walked not blamelessly with his brother. According to the testimony of the holy Prophet Isaias, He abominates the Sabbath, and the new moons, and the sacrifices of the Jews. He even protests openly that His “soul hateth” them; and He asks, “When you came before Me, who required these things at your hands?” In my opinion their hands did not smell of the lilies, and therefore He “Who feedeth among the lilies,” and not among the thorns, refused to accept any gifts from them. Why should I not say that their hands were rather bristling with thorns than covered with lilies, the hands of them to whom the same Prophet addressed the reproach, “Your hands are full of blood”? The hands of Esau were hairy (pilosae) as we read, and so hairy that they appeared thorny (spinosae). Hence he was not admitted to minister before the Holy One.