Sermon LVI. On the Mystical Sense of the Wall, the Windows, and the Lattices

"Behold He standeth behind our wall, looking through the windows looking through the lattices."

"Behold He standeth behind our wall, looking through the windows, looking through the lattices." Taking these words, my brethren, in their literal signification, we learn that He Who was observed approaching with leaps and bounds, has now drawn nigh to His loved one's dwelling; but being too bashful to enter. He remains behind the wall, eagerly watching His Spouse through the windows and other apertures. According to the spiritual sense also, we are given to understand that the Beloved has arrived. But the actions mentioned in this place must be so interpreted as that they shall appear not unworthy either of being performed by the Word or of being described by the Holy Ghost. For the true and mystical meaning of this verse can admit of nothing unbecoming the Majesty either of the Bridegroom, Who is revealed here as the Agent, or of the Spirit Who has recorded His doings. Let us therefore say that the Word approached the wall when He united Himself to our nature. The wall signifies the flesh, the drawing near of the Bridegroom the Incarnation of the Word. Furthermore, by the windows and lattices, through which He is represented as looking, we are to understand our bodily senses and human feelings and affections, which He made His own, in order, so it seems to me, that by them He might have personal experience of all our human miseries. For "He hath borne our infirmities, and carried our sorrows." Therefore, being now made man, He used as windows and lattices, our corporeal faculties and natural sensibilities, for the purpose of acquiring an experimental knowledge of the evils men endure, that so "He might become merciful." Our v^ wretchedness was known to Him even before He took flesh, but in a different manner.¹ Thus, the "Lord of virtues "could never have been ignorant of the virtue of obedience, and yet we are assured by the Apostle that "He learned obedience by the things that He v suffered. ' ' In the same way. He learned mercy, although / "the mercy of the Lord is from eternity," as the Psalmist says. We are informed of this also by the Doctor of nations, where he tells us that Christ was "tempted in all things, like as we are, without sin, that He might become merciful." Do you not see, my brethren, how He became what He was already, how He learned what He knew before, and how He sought for Himself in our nature windows and lattices, through which He could observe more closely our misery and wretchedness? And He found in the chinky and dilapidated wall of our humanity as many spy-holes as were the evidences of our infirmity and mortality which He experienced in His Body.

It is in this sense, therefore, that the Bridegroom appeared standing behind our wall, and looking through the wiadows and the lattices. And rightly is He represented as standing, because He alone has ever really stood in the flesh, Who alone knew not the sin of the flesh. We may also piously consider that the same Christ Who lay prostrate through the infirmity of the flesh, was enabled to stand erect by the power of His Divinity, according to what is written "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." It seems to me that this view receives some support and confirmation from what the Psalmist said of the Lord, speaking with reference to the same mystery. For David was a prophet, and it is as a prophet he spoke here. And although he has the name of Moses on his lips, it is not of Moses but of Christ he is thinking. Christ indeed is the true Moses, "Who came by water," indeed, yet "not by water alone, but by water and blood." The Psalmist therefore sings, "And He — viz., God the Father — said that He would destroy them, had not Moses, His chosen, stood before Him in the breaking to turn away His wrath, lest He should destroy them." In what way, I ask, could Moses have stood "in the breaking"? * If he were broken, how was it possible for him to stand? And if he stood, in what sense could he have been broken?

• *'² But allow me to tell you, my brethren, who it was that really stood "in the breaking." None other, I believe, could have done this, except my Lord Jesus, Who certainly lived even in death; Who by His Divinity was standing with His Father, the while His Body hung broken upon the cross; Who on Calvary was making supplication as a Man amongst men and for men, whilst in heaven showing mercy as God with v God. And so He was standing behind the wall whilst the weakness whereby He lay prostrate, as it were, was manifested in the flesh, and the strength wherein He stood remained hidden behind the flesh. He being in both one and the same Bridegroom, revealed in Jlis Humanity, concealed in His Divinity.

But in another sense the Bridegroom, as I judge, -^ stands behind the wall for each one of us who desire His coming, because this body of ours, which the Apostle calls the "body of sin," hides His Face from us for a time, and shuts out His presence. For "while we are in the body, we are absent from the Lord," as St. Paul declares. He does not mean, while we are in the body simply, but in this body, which is the *' body of sin," and cannot be without sin. And if you would know for certain that it is not our bodies but our sins which stand as a wall between the Bridegroom and ourselves, listen to the Prophet Isaias: ** Your iniquities,"he tells us, ** have divided between you and your God, and your sins have hid His Face from you." But would to God the wall of my body were the only one! Would to God the sole obstruction were the sin which exists in my flesh, and that between the Bridegroom and me there were not multiplied lences of vice! For I fear I have added, by my personal guilt, innumerable other walls to the one which my nature inherits, and thus placed a barrier exceedingly wide in the way of the Beloved; so that, if I wished to be sincere, I should acknowledge that in my regard He stands behind, not one wall, but many.

I will try and make this plainer. In virtue of the immensity of His Divine Majesty, and the omnipotence of His power, the Bridegroom is equally and indiscriminately present to all the works of His Hands. But, as regards His rational creatures, whether angels or men. He is said to be near to some and far from others, according as He communicates or withholds His grace. Hence the Psalmist says, "Salvation is far from sinners." And the same Prophet asks, "Why, O Lord, has Thou retired afar off?" But in the case of His friends, although by a gracious dispensation of His love He occasionally conceals His presence from them, it is only for a time and in part. From sinners, on the other hand, He is always and distantly remote, v/^ and that not in mercy but in anger. For of these it is written, "The pride of them that hate Thee ascendeth continually"; also, "Their ways are filthy at all times." Wherefore holy David prays to God and says, "Decline not in Thy wrath from Thy servant." He begs Him not to decline in His wrath, because he knew that He might also decline in His mercy. The Lord, -y therefore, is nigh to His saints and His chosen, even when He appears far removed. Nevertheless, He does not make Himself equally present to all but to some more, to others less, according to the diversity of their merits. For although "the Lord is nigh unto all them that call upon Him in truth," and also "nigh unto them that are of a contrite heart," still perhaps He is not so nigh to all as that they can truly say, "Behold He standeth behind our wall." But to the Spouse He is singularly present, because in her case there is only one dividing wall. Hence she desires to be dissolved, so that, when this wall of separation has been broken down, she may enjoy the company and vision of Him Who as she trusts is standing behind.³

I, however, who am but a sinner, instead of desiring to be dissolved, am rather terrified at the thought of it, as knowing that "the death of the wicked is very evil." How can death be other than very evil, if He Who is our Life is not at hand to deliver us? I am afraid to die, I am seized with trembling terror under the very portal of death, because I have no assurance that He is standing nigh to receive me at my exit from the body. What? Can I expect to make that exit in safety, if the Lord does not "keep my going out"? Alas! I shall become the sport of the demons, who are waiting to intercept me, unless He be at hand "to redeem and to save." No such fears could trouble the soul of St. Paul. He was divided from the vision and the embrace of the Beloved by only a single wall, namely, by the "law of sin" which he found in his members. This law of sin is the "concupiscence of the flesh," which he could not be without so long as he lived in the flesh. But the obstruction of this one wall did not remove the Lord far off from him. Hence that yearning cry, "Who will deliver me from the body of this death?" For he knew that the short passage of death would bring him straight to life. St. Paul therefore confessed that there was but one wall in his way, that is, the law of concupiscence irremovably planted in his flesh, and to which he submitted unwillingly. As for the rest, he could say, "I am conscious to myself of nothing."

But which of us, my brethren, is like St. Paul, in that he does not sometimes consent to this concupiscence "so as to obey the lusts thereof"? Now he who has consented to sin should know that by this unlawful and wicked act he has enclosed himself within a second wall. Therefore, such a one cannot boast like the Spouse that the Bridegroom is standing behind his wall, since it is no longer one wall that makes the division, but two. Much less can he make this boast, if the internal consent issues in the external act of sin, because the Bridegroom's approach is now obstructed and prevented by a third wall, namely, the fulfilment of an evil purpose.⁴ But what, if by repetition the act of sin hardens into a habit, and the habit of sin induces contempt, as it is written, "The wicked, when he is come into the depth of sins, contemneth"? Shouldst thou happen to die in this state, O my brother, what is there to prevent thee from being devoured a thousand times by "the lions roaring, ready for their prey," before thou canst reach the Bridegroom Who is parted from thee, not by one, but by a numerous succession of walls? The first wall is concupiscence; the second, consent; the third, the external act of sin; the fourth, the habit of sin; the fifth, the callousness of contempt. Be careful, then, to resist the first of these, namely, concupiscence, with all thy power, lest otherwise it should lead thee to consent. If thou art faithful here, the malignant one can set up no other wall against thee. There shall consequently be nothing but the wall of the flesh between thy Beloved and thee to prevent His access. Thus shalt thou also be able to glory with the Spouse, and to say of the Bridegroom, "Behold He standeth behind our wall."

But there is another matter which thou shouldst attend to with all possible vigilance. Thou must see to it that the Beloved shall always find wide open the windows and the lattices of thy confessions, if I may so speak, so that through these openings He may regard thee within with a gracious glance. For His regard is thy progress. Lattices (cancelli) are narrow windows, which persons who make a business of writing cause to be opened in the wall, in order to obtain light for their work. Hence, as I believe, the name "chancellors" is given to those who have the office of drawing up charters and other formal instruments. Now there are two species of confession, the one consisting in a sorrowful declaration of our sins, the other in a gladsome acknowledgment of the divine benefits. W^hen-ever, therefore, I make that confession which is always accompanied with anguish (angustia) of heart — I mean the confession of sin — it appears to me that I have opened the lattice, that is to say, the narrow window (angustiorem fenestram). Nor can there be any doubt that He who stands behind the wall as a loving Observer, will gladly avail Himself of this aperture and look in upon me, because "a contrite and humbled heart God will not despise." He Himself has told me to open my lattice for Him, saying by His Prophet, ** Do thou first confess thy iniquities, that thou mayst be justified."⁵ But if occasionally my heart dilates under the influence of charity and, thinking of the divine condescension and compassion, I feel moved to let my soul expand in the confession of praise and thanksgiving, at such times I may be truly said to open, not now the lattice, but the widest of my windows, for the sake of the Bridegroom Who stands behind the wall. And I think He will look in through this ampler opening the more willingly in proportion as the "sacrifice of praise glorifieth "Him more. I could easily discover Scripture testimonies relating to both these confessions. But I am speaking to persons who are too well informed to have any need of such evidence. And it would be very unreasonable in us to burden ourselves with superfluities, considering that we have scarcely time for the investigation of what is necessary, namely, the secrets of this celestial love-song, and the praises of the Church therein celebrated, and of the Bridegroom of the Church, Jesus Christ Our Lord, Who is over all things, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Footnotes

1. There are three kinds of knowledge to be distinguished in Christ, namely, the divine and beatific knowledge which belongs to Him as He is God; the supernatural knowledge infused into His Human Soul at the moment of the Incarnation; and the experimental knowledge, derived like our own from the activity of the bodily senses whilst He hved upon earth. Only the third of these was ever capable of increase. Not that Our Lord acquired by it any knowledge which He did not already possess, but He learned to know in a new way, i.e., experimentally, what He knew before in a higher way. It is in this sense St. Luke says (ii. 52), "And Jesus advanced in wisdom." Cf. Suarez, III. vii. 12; also A Lapide, Com. in Lucam., ii. 52. — (Translator.) ↩

2. In confractione." St. Bernard understands this phrase in a reflexive sense, as equivalent to "in confractione sui" (in the breaking of himself). Such an interpretation seems to do violence to the text and is found nowhere else. It is purely an adaptation. — (Translator.) ↩

3. In this paragraph we have distinguished for us the four modes of the divine presence, namely, presence by Essence, which is necessary and common to all creatures, without distinction; presence by grace, proper to the friends of God; presence by consolation, whereby the soul is sometimes allowed to feel in a sensible way the proximity of the Beloved; and presence by vision or glory, reserved for the life to come. Elsewhere (Ser. 6 in dedicat. Eccles.) the Saint gives the same distinctions in different words, "God is present in every place and to all His creatures, as containing and disposing all; yet not in the same manner is He present to all.... He is present to the wicked in dissimulation, to the just in fidelity, to heaven in joy, and to hell in vengeance." Cf. Hurter, Comp. TheoL Dogmat., t. II, n. 67. — (Translator.) ↩

4. The external action contains no independent morality; of itself and directly it does not add anything to the morality of the will's determination. Yet indirectly, in so far as it prolongs and intensifies the interior act, it may be said to render the latter better or worse. Cf. Lehmkuhl, Theol. Moral., v. 1, n. 36.—(Translator.) ↩

5. "Die tu iniquitates tuas prior ut justificeres" (Is. xliii. 26). This corresponds exactly with the Greek, "Xe-yf av ras dvofiias prov rrpoiTos iva BiKaicoBfJ s" But the Vulgate reading is, "Narra si quid habes ut justificeris," which the Douay Translators have rendered, "Tell if thou hast anything to justify thyself." — (Translator.) ↩