Nor did Bernard, mellifluous among the doctors1 and the last among the Fathers2, judge otherwise concerning the divine will, the order and manner of reparation, and that providence by which God has always provided, and continues to provide, for the human race. For, explaining in a commentary the words of the Apostle3, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and the God of all consolation,” he observes at the beginning4:
In that God is called the Father of mercies, who does not see the Son designated as if5 by a proper name? And he is well called the Father of mercies, whose property it is always to have mercy and to spare.
Then he continues6:
But perhaps someone may say: how is it proper to him to have mercy, whose judgments7 are a great abyss? For it is not said8, “All his ways are mercy alone,” but “mercy and truth.” He is no less just than merciful, to whom9 mercy and judgment are sung.
He replies:
That indeed is true: “He has mercy upon whom he wills10, and whom he wills he hardens”; but that he has mercy is proper to him. For he takes the material and, as it were, a certain seedbed of having mercy from himself. For that he judges and condemns, we in some manner compel him, so that mercy appears to proceed from his heart in a far different way than punishment does. Hear him himself saying11: “Is the death of the impious my will, says the Lord, and not rather that he be converted and live?” Rightly, therefore, he is not called the father of judgments or punishments, but the Father of mercies, not only because a father appears to have mercy rather than to be indignant, but all the more because he takes the cause and origin of having mercy from what is his own, but that of judging or punishing rather from what is ours.
When I read these things and turn them over with myself in my mind, I seem to myself to hear Chrysostom again12, to hear Damascene13, and to hear the other Greeks and Latins14 whose testimonies and opinions I have collected thus far. For what does Bernard hand down concerning the divine will toward men? Namely, that it is twofold, the one of mercy, the other of truth and judgment. But are they separated and divided from one another by no distinction? Rather, by one varied and manifold.
For if we give credence to Bernard, first there exists between the two a distinction of origin, since the will of mercy is implanted in God and flows spontaneously from his heart; but the will of judgment ought rather to be attributed to us who sin than to God himself who judges.
Then there exists a distinction of order, since the former begins and the latter follows; the former claims primacy for itself, and the latter succeeds only in the second place.
Finally, there exists a distinction of amplitude, since the former extends as widely as the mercy of him who is properly called the Father of mercies extends; but the latter is referred only to those who in some manner compel God to punish them with the severity of a judge.
Footnotes
-
Cf. the singular little work of Théophile Raynaud entitled The Gallican Bee, in which the title Mellifluous Doctor is asserted for Bernard. ↩
-
On this matter read Mabillon’s discussion in the preface to the works of Bernard, § II, nos. 25 ff. ↩
-
II Cor. I. 3. ↩
-
On the Nativity of the Lord, Sermon V, no. 2, p. 792, Paris ed., 1719. ↩
-
The adverb as if is skillfully added, for the Father is mercy, and the Son is mercy, and the Holy Spirit is mercy; and these three are nothing but one mercy, just as they are one essence, one wisdom, one divinity, one majesty. ↩
-
Ibid., no. 3, pp. 792-793. ↩
-
Ps. XXXV. 6. ↩
-
Ps. XXIV. 10. ↩
-
Ps. C. 1. ↩
-
Rom. IX. 18. ↩
-
Ezek. XVIII. 23. ↩