Sermons on the Song of Songs

“If thou know not thyself, go forth.”

I have come to-day, my brethren, with the purpose of fulfilling my promise, of gratifying your desires, and of discharging a duty which I owe to God. Therefore, as you perceive, three motives move me to speak, fidelity to engagement, fraternal charity, and the fear of the Lord. If I am silent, my own mouth shall condemn me. But what if I speak? Of a truth, I fear the same judgment, that, whilst saying and not doing, I shall be again condemned by my own mouth. Do you, then, assist me by your prayers, that I may be able always both to say what is expedient and to practise what I preach. You are aware that the subject I have selected for the present discourse is ignorance, or rather the varieties of ignorance. For, as you remember, I spoke of two kinds, namely, ignorance of ourselves and ignorance of God, both of which I said were criminal and to be avoided. It remains for me now to explain this subject more clearly and to discuss it more exhaustively. But it appears to me that I ought first to inquire whether every kind of ignorance is blameworthy. I am not inclined to think that such is the case, since we shall not be condemned for not knowing everything, and there are many, yea, innumerable things whereof ignorance is no obstacle to salvation. For instance, in what way would your spiritual interests suffer from lack of acquaintance with the mechanical arts, such as that of the carpenter, or the mason, or any other of those trades which men are wont to ply for temporal uses? Even without any knowledge of those arts which are called liberal, and the study and exercise of which are considered more noble and profitable, countless multitudes of men have saved their souls, pleasing God by their virtues and their works. How many, for example, does the Apostle enumerate in his Epistle to the Hebrews, who became dear to God, less by their knowledge of literature, than by the purity of their conscience and the sincerity of their faith! All pleased the Lord whilst they lived here below, not by the profundity of their learning, but by the merit of their virtues. Neither St. Peter nor St. Andrew, nor the sons of Zebedee, nor any of their fellow-apostles, was chosen from the schools of philosophy or rhetoric. And yet, by means of them, the Saviour “wrought salvation in the midst of the earth.” Not that they could say, like the holy man Ecclesiastes, that they surpassed all others in wisdom; but “in their faith and in their meekness” the Lord saved them, and even sanctified them, even appointed them to be the instructors of others. For they made known to the world His “ways of life,” and that “not in loftiness of speech,” nor “in the learned words of human wisdom,” but as “it pleased God by the foolishness of their preaching to save them that believe,” since “the world by wisdom knew not God.”

Perhaps you consider me unduly severe and narrow in my views on human knowledge, and suppose that I am censuring the learned and condemning the study of literature. God forbid that I should do so! I am well aware how much her learned members have benefited and do still benefit the Church, whether by refuting her opponents or by instructing the ignorant. And I have read what the Lord says by the mouth of His Prophet Osee, “Because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will reject thee, that thou shalt not do the office of priesthood to Me”; and by His Prophet Daniel, “But they that are learned shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that instruct many to justice, as stars for all eternity.” Nevertheless, I remember also to have read that “knowledge puffeth up,” and “He that addeth knowledge, addeth also labour.” You perceive, my brethren, that there are distinctions in knowledge, since there is one kind that inflates with vainglory, and another which sobers us. Now, I wish to know which of these two varieties seems to you the more useful or the more necessary for salvation, that which puffs us up with pride, or that which pains and humbles? But I feel sure you prefer the sobering knowledge to the inflating. For whereas our spiritual health is destroyed by the swelling of vanity, the desire of its recovery is excited by the bitterness of humiliation. And he who desires salvation will ask for it and so draw nigh to it, “for every one that asketh receiveth.” Finally, He “Who healeth the broken of heart,” detests the man that is swollen with pride; since, as we read in Wisdom, “God resisteth the proud and giveth His grace to the humble.” And St. Paul thus exhorts the faithful, “I say, by the grace that is given me, to all that are among you, not to be more wise than it behoveth to be wise, but to be wise unto sobriety.” He does not forbid them to be wise, but only to be “more wise than it behoveth.” But what does he mean by the expression “to be wise unto sobriety”? He means, no doubt, to admonish us that we must examine most carefully what objects of knowledge have the first and strongest claim to our study. For “the time is short.” Now, all knowledge is good in itself, provided, however, that it be founded on truth. But we, my brethren, who are in a hurry to work out our salvation “with fear and trembling,” in the limited time allowed us, we certainly should devote our first and best attention to the acquisition of that knowledge which appears to be most intimately connected with our spiritual welfare. Do not medical doctors assert that it is a part of their remedies to determine what their patients shall take first at meals, what next, and in what quantity they are to use each kind of meat? For although it is manifest that all species of food are good in themselves, as having been created by God for our use, nevertheless we may easily render them bad for us, by failing to observe the due measure and order. Understand, then, of the varieties of knowledge what I have said of the varieties of food.

But I had better send you to St. Paul himself, whom I acknowledge as my master. For the doctrine which I preach is not mine but his. Yet in another sense it is mine, because it is the doctrine of truth. “If any man,” says the Apostle, “think that he knoweth anything, he hath not yet known as he ought to know.” You observe, my brethren, that he does not commend the knowing of many things in one who is ignorant of the right manner of knowing. You observe, I say, how he makes the fruit and utility of knowledge to consist mainly in the right manner of knowing. What, therefore, does he mean by the right manner of knowing? Evidently he wishes to teach us by these words in what order, with what ardour, and with what intention each kind of knowledge should be acquired. In what order, because we ought first to learn those truths which most immediately concern our salvation. With what ardour, because that knowledge should be most eagerly pursued which most powerfully conduces to charity. With what intention, because the motive of our studies must not be vainglory, curiosity, or anything such, but only our own spiritual advancement and the edification of our neighbour. There are some who desire to know simply for the sake of knowing, and this is shameful curiosity. And there are some who desire to know in order that they may become known themselves, and this is shameful vanity. To such persons, certainly, can be applied what the satirist says of the vainglorious man:—

“You rate the worth of knowledge low

Unless your neighbours know you know.”

And some there are who desire to know in order to trade with their knowledge, bartering it for gold or for honours, and this is shameful traffic. But there are some also who desire to know in order to edify, and this is charity. And some, finally, who desire to know in order to be edified, and this is prudence.