Love

Passages

Every passage tagged with this emotion in the Vela corpus. Search the body text, narrow by source or register, click through to a book’s profile to see how the passage sits with the rest of the work.

Page 90 of 184 · 20 per page

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  GREGORY. (Hom. xxv.) Perhaps, however, the woman was right in believing Jesus to be the gardener. Was not He the spiritual Gardener, who by the power of His love had sown strong seeds of virtue in her breast? But how is it that, as soon as she sees the gardener, as she supposes Him to be, she says, without having told Him who it was she was seeking, Sir, if Thou hast borne Him hence? It arises from her love; when one loves a person, one never thinks that any one else can be ignorant of him. Our Lord, after calling her by the common name of her sex, and not being recognised, calls her by her own name: Jesus saith unto her, Mary; as if to say, Recognise Him, who recognises thee. Mary, being called by name, recognises Him; that it was He whom she sought externally, and He who taught her internally to seek: She turned herself, and saith unto Him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. CHRYSOSTOM. (Hom. lxxxvi. 1) Just as He was sometimes in the midst of the Jews, and they did not know Him till He pleased to make Himself known. But why does she turn herself, when she had turned herself before? It seems to me that when she said, Where thou hast laid Him, she turned to the Angels, to ask why they were astonished. Then Christ, calling her, discovered Himself by His voice, and made her turn to Him again. AUGUSTINE. (Tr. cxxi) Or she first turned her body, but thought Him what He was not; now she was turned in heart, and knew who He was. Let no one however blame her, because she called the gardener, Lord, and Jesus, Master. The one was a title of courtesy to a person from whom she was asking a favour; the other of respect to a Teacher from whom she was used to learn to distinguish the divine from the human. The word Lord is used in different senses, when she says, They have taken away my Lord, and when she says, Lord, if Thou have borne Him away. GREGORY. (Hom. xxv.) The Evangelist does not add what she did upon recognising Him, but we know from what our Lord said to her: Jesus saith unto her, Touch Me not. Mary then had tried to embrace His feet, but was not allowed. Why not? The reason follows: For I am not yet ascended to My Father.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  The Pefection of Brotherly Love Which is Necessary for SalvationWE may fittingly conclude these considerations about the perfection of charity, as it regards God, with some reflections touching perfect charity as it concerns our neighbour. There are several degrees of perfect love of our neighbour, just as there are several degrees of perfect love of God. There is a certain perfection of this virtue which is a matter of precept, and which is necessary to salvation. There is, further, a supererogatory perfection, which is a matter of counsel. The perfection of brotherly love necessary to salvation, is of the nature prescribed by the precept, “Thou shall love your neighbour as your self.”As God is the universal Good, existing above us, it is necessary, as we have before said, for the perfection of divine love that the whole heart should be, in a certain sense, turned to God. This degree of divine love is expressed by the precept, “Love the Lord your God with your whole heart.” But our neighbour is not the universal good existing above ourselves; he is a particular good beneath us. Therefore, we are not bidden to love him with our whole heart, but as ourselves. Three consequences follow from this proposition. First, our love must be sincere. It is in the nature of love to wish well to the object beloved. Hence, love tends towards two things: to the one to whom we are wishing well, and to the good which we desire for him. And, although both these things are said to be loved, that object is truly loved to which we wish some good. For the good which we wish to another person is only loved per accidens, because it falls within the limits of the act of love. Now it is incorrect to say that we really and sincerely love an object which we desire to destroy; and as many of the things which we use are destroyed, we only love such things per accidens. For instance, we consume wine in drinking, we expose a horse to death in battle; in such cases, we are truly loving ourselves and are only loving these other things per accidens, on account of the use which they are to us.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  Now in all matters of appetite and action the measure is the end, because the proper reason for all that we desire or do should be taken from the end, as the Philosopher proves (Phys. ii, 9). Therefore the end has a mode by itself, while the means take their mode from being proportionate to the end. Hence, according to the Philosopher (Polit. i, 3), “in every art, the desire for the end is endless and unlimited,” whereas there is a limit to the means: thus the physician does not put limits to health, but makes it as perfect as he possibly can; but he puts a limit to medicine, for he does not give as much medicine as he can, but according as health demands so that if he give too much or too little, the medicine would be immoderate. Again, the end of all human actions and affections is the love of God, whereby principally we attain to our last end, as stated above ([2577]Q[23], A[6]), wherefore the mode in the love of God, must not be taken as in a thing measured where we find too much or too little, but as in the measure itself, where there cannot be excess, and where the more the rule is attained the better it is, so that the more we love God the better our love is. Reply to Objection 1: That which is so by its essence takes precedence of that which is so through another, wherefore the goodness of the measure which has the mode essentially, takes precedence of the goodness of the thing measured, which has its mode through something else; and so too, charity, which has a mode as a measure has, stands before the other virtues, which have a mode through being measured . Reply to Objection 2: As Augustine adds in the same passage, “the measure of our love for God is to love Him with our whole heart,” that is to love Him as much as He can be loved, and this belongs to the mode which is proper to the measure. Reply to Objection 3: An affection, whose object is subject to reason’s judgment, should be measured by reason. But the object of the Divine love which is God surpasses the judgment of reason, wherefore it is not measured by reason but transcends it. Nor is there parity between the interior act and external acts of charity. For the interior act of charity has the character of an end, since man’s ultimate good consists in his soul cleaving to God, according to Ps. 72:28: “It is good for me to adhere to my God”; whereas the exterior acts are as means to the end, and so have to be measured both according to charity and according to reason.

• From New Testament Words (1964)

  Man might sin, but God still loved. It was not God who needed to be pacified, but man who needed to be moved to surrender and to penitence and to love. (iii) Here then we are face to face with an inescapable truth. The effect of the Cross—at least in this sphere of the thought of Paul—was on man, and not on God. The effect of the Cross changed, not the heart of God, but the heart of man. It was man who needed to be reconciled, not God. It is entirely against all Pauline thought to think of Jesus Christ pacifying an angry God, or to think that in some way God’s wrath was turned to love, and God’s judgment was turned to mercy, because of something which Jesus did. When we look at it in Paul’s way, it was man’s sin which was turned to penitence, man’s rebellion which was turned to surrender, man’s enmity which was turned to love, by the sacrificial love of Jesus Christ upon the Cross. It cost that Cross to make that change in the hearts of men. (iv) One thing remains to be said. If all this is so—and it is so—the ministry of the Church is a ministry of reconciliation, as indeed Paul said it was (II Cor. 5.19, 20). The function of the preacher is to convey to men, not the announcement of the threat of God’s wrath, but the proclamation of the offer of God’s love. The message of the preacher must ever be: Look at that Cross and see how much God loves you. Can you hold back in face of a love like that? The very essence of Christianity is the restoration of a lost relationship. The summons of Christianity is to return to a God whose love men spumed, but whose love is ever waiting for men to come home. The task of the preacher is to break men’s hearts at the sight of the broken heart of God. KATHAROS THE LIFE THAT IS CLEAN Katharos , which means ‘pure’ or ‘clean’, is one of the great Greek words. It occurs about 24 times in the NT; but before ever it became a Christian word it had a rich variety of meanings, all of which contribute something to its meaning for us.

• From New Testament Words (1964)

  (vi) The essence of the Christian faith is love of Jesus (Eph. 6.24; I Peter 1.8; John 21.15, 16). Just as Jesus is the lover of the souls of men, the Christian is the lover of Christ. (vii) The mark of the Christian life is the love of Christians for one another (John 13.34; 15.12, 17; I Peter 1.22; I John 3.11, 23; I John 4.7). Christians are people who love Jesus and who love each other. The basis of every conceivable right relationship in heaven and earth is love. It is on love that all relationships, both human and divine, are founded. The NT has much to tell us about God’s love for men. (i) Love is the very nature of God. God is love (I John 4.7, 8; II Cor. 13.11). (ii) God’s love is a universal love. It was not only a chosen nation, it was the world that God so loved (John 3.16). (iii) God’s love is a sacrificial love. The proof of his love is the giving of his Son for men (I John 4.9,10; John 3.16). The guarantee of Jesus’ love is that he loved us and gave himself for us (Gal. 2.20; Eph. 5.2; Rev. 1.5). (iv) God’s love is an undeserved love. It was while we were sinners and enemies that God loved us and Jesus died for us (Rom. 5.8; I John 3.1; 4.9, 10). (v) God’s love is a merciful love (Eph. 2.4). It is not dictatorial, not domineeringly possessive; it is the yearning love of the merciful heart. (vi) God’s love is a saving and a sanctifying love (II Thess. 2.13). It rescues from the situation of the past and enables men to meet the situations of the future. (vii) God’s love is a strengthening love. In it and through it a man becomes more than a conquerer (Rom. 8.37). It is not the softening and over-protective love which makes a man weak and flabby; it is the love which makes heroes. (viii) God’s love is an inseparable love (Rom. 8.39). In the nature of things human love must come to an end, at least for a time, but God’s love outlasts all the chances and the changes and the threats of life. (ix) God’s love is a rewarding love (James 1.12; 2.5). In this life it is a precious thing, and its promises are still greater for the life to come. (x) God’s love is a chastening love (Heb. 12.6). God’s love is the love which knows that discipline is an essential part of love. The NT has much to say about what man’s love for God must be. (i) It must be an exclusive love (Matt. 6.24; cp. Luke 16.13). There is only room for one loyalty in the Christian life. (ii) It is a love which is founded on gratitude (Luke 7.42, 47). The gifts of God’s love demand in return the whole love of our hearts.

• From New Testament Words (1964)

  Before we go on to examine their use in detail, there are certain things about these words and their meaning we must note. We must ask why Christian language abandoned the other Greek words for love and concentrated on these. It is true to say that all the other words had acquired certain flavours which made them unsuitable. Erōs had quite definite associations with the lower side of love; it had much more to do with passion than with love. Storgē was very definitely tied up with family affection; it never had in it the width that the conception of Christian love demands. Philia was a lovely word, but it was definitely a word of warmth and closeness and affection; it could only properly be used of the near and the dear, and Christianity needed a much more inclusive word than that. Christian thought fastened on this word agapē because it was the only word capable of being filled with the content which was required. The great reason why Christian thought fastened on agapē is that agapē demands the exercise of the whole man. Christian love must not only extend to our nearest and our dearest, our kith and kin, our friends and those who love us; Christian love must extend to the Christian fellowship, to the neighbour, to the enemy, to all the world. Now, all the ordinary words for love are words which express an emotion. They are words which have to do with the heart. They express an experience which comes to us unsought, and, in a way, inevitably. We cannot help loving our kith and kin; blood is thicker than water. We speak about falling in love. That kind of love is not an achievement; it is something which happens to us and which we cannot help. There is no particular virtue in falling in love. It is something with which we have little or nothing consciously to do; it simply happens. But agapē is far more than that. Agapē has to do with the mind: it is not simply an emotion which rises unbidden in our hearts; it is a principle by which we deliberately live. Agapē has supremely to do with the will. It is a conquest, a victory, and achievement. No one ever naturally loved his enemies. To love one’s enemies is a conquest of all our natural inclinations and emotions. This agapē, this Christian love, is not merely an emotional experience which comes to us unbidden and unsought; it is a deliberate principle of the mind, and a deliberate conquest and achievement of the will.

• From New Testament Words (1964)

  This agapē, this Christian love, is not merely an emotional experience which comes to us unbidden and unsought; it is a deliberate principle of the mind, and a deliberate conquest and achievement of the will. It is in fact the power to love the unlovable, to love people whom we do not like. Christianity does not ask us to love our enemies and to love men at large in the same way as we love our nearest and our dearest and those who are closest to us; that would be at one and the same time impossible and wrong. But it does demand that we should have at all times a certain attitude of the mind and a certain direction of the will towards all men, no matter who they are. What then is the meaning of this agapē? The supreme passage for the interpretation of the meaning of agapē is Matt. 5.43-48. We are there bidden to love our enemies. Why? In order that we should be like God. And what is the typical action of God that is cited? God sends his rain on the just and the unjust and on the evil and the good. That is to say—no matter what a man is like, God seeks nothing but his highest good. Let a man be a saint or let a man be a sinner, God’s only desire is for that man’s highest good. Now, that is what agapē is. Agapē is the spirit which says: ‘No matter what any man does to me, I will never seek to do harm to him; I will never set out for revenge; I will always seek nothing but his highest good.’ That is to say, Christian love, agapē, is unconquerable benevolence, invincible good will. It is not simply a wave of emotion; it is a deliberate conviction of the mind issuing in a deliberate policy of the life; it is a deliberate achievement and conquest and victory of the will. It takes all of a man to achieve Christian love; it takes not only his heart; it takes his mind and his will as well. If that is so, two things are to be noted. (i) Human agapē, our love towards our fellow men, is bound to be a product of the Spirit. The NT is quite clear about that (Gal. 5.22; Rom. 15.30; Col. 1.8). Christian agapē is unnatural in the sense that it is not possible for the natural man. A man can only exercise this universal benevolence, he can only be cleansed from human hatred and human bitterness and the natural human reaction to enmity and injury and dislike, when the Spirit takes possession of him and sheds abroad the love of God in his heart.

• From New Testament Words (1964)

  That incident is the perfect illustration of all that kalos means. It was a demonstration of love; it was the act of a love which knew that only the best it had to give was good enough; it was the act of a love which refused to count the cost. It was the act of a love which set beauty far above mere utility; of a love which knew that giving can never be dictated by the cautious prudentialities of common sense. A deed which is kalos is a deed in which there is enshrined the beauty of love’s extravagance. The second usage in the NT which demonstrates the meaning of kalos is that it is the word which is used of Jesus in that title which is for many the most precious title of Jesus—the Good Shepherd (John 10.11, 14). The shepherd does not look after his sheep with only a cold efficiency. He looks after them with a sacrificial love. When the sheep are in trouble, he does not nicely calculate the risk of helping them; he gives his life for the sheep. He does not give so many hours’ service to the sheep per day, and carefully calculate that he must work so many hours a week. All through the day he watches over them, and all through the night he lies across the opening in the sheep-fold so that he is literally the door. Here we have the same idea again. The good shepherd is the shepherd whose service is a lovely and a heroic thing because it is a service, not rendered for pay, but rendered for love. The basic idea in the word kalos is the idea of winsome beauty; and we are bound to see that nothing can be kalos unless it be the product of love. Deeds which are kalos are the outcome of a heart in which love reigns supreme. The outward beauty of the deed springs from the inward magnitude of the love within the heart. There is no English word which fully translates kalos; there is no word which gathers up within itself the beauty, the winsomeness, the attractiveness, the generosity, the usefulness, which are all included in this word. Perhaps the word which comes nearest to it is the Scots word bonnie. J. P. Struthers, that great Scottish preacher, used to say that it would do the Church more good than anything else in the world if Christians would only sometimes do a bonnie thing. He lived up to his own teaching. He lived in a manse in Greenock which was at the end of the road which led up to the hillside above the firth. The lads and lasses used to take that road at evening time. Struthers had a garden; and he used to pluck the flowers in it and make them up into little posies which he used to lay along his garden wall.

• From Heptaméron (1559)

  sons. To make them more impressive and acceptable, that sly instructor concealed himself under the face and in the eyes of the handsomest lady in the country, who had come to town on business connected with a lawsuit. Before Love employed the charms of this lady to subju- gate the young seigneur, he had gained her heart by letting her see the perfections of the gentleman, who for good looks, pleasing manners, good sense, and a winning- tongue, was not surpassed by anyone. You who know what way this fire makes in a little time, when once it has begun to burn the outworks of a heart, will easily imagine that love was not long in rendering himself master of two such accomplished subjects, and so filling them with his light that their thoughts, wishes, and words were but the flame of tliat love. The natural timidity of youth made the gallant press his suit with all possible gentleness. But it was not necessary to do violence to the fair one, since love had already van- quished her. Modesty, nevertheless, that inseparable companion of the ladies, obliged her to conceal the sen- timents of her heart as long as she could. But at last the citadel of the heart, wherein honour has its dwelling, was so breached that the poor lady gave her consent to what she had never been loth to. Still, in order to put the patience, fortitude, and passion of her lover to the proof, she surrendered only on one very difficult condi- tion ; on his fulfilling which, she assured him that she would always love him most truly ; but if he failed in it, she would do quite the reverse. The condition she pro- posed was this : she would condescend to talk with him, both being in bed together en chemise, but he was to ask nothing of her beyond kisses and sweet words ; and he, thinking there was no joy comparable to that which she offered him, accepted the condition without hesitation. Second day.] Q UEEN OF NA VA RRE. 1 7 1

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  It is clear, likewise, that every man does, by nature, love himself truly, in so far as to wish benefits to himself, happiness, for instance, virtue, knowledge, and the necessaries of life. But those things of which he avails himself he does not truly love in themselves; rather, he loves the service they render him, and he prefers himself to them. Now this proposition is as true with regard to persons, as it is with regard to things. We love some men only because they are of use to us; and when this is the case, it is evident that we do not truly love them as we love ourselve&) He that loves another because he is of service- to him, or affords him gratification, proves that he loves himself. As he seeks only convenience and profit from his friend and not his friend himself, he can only be said to love his friend in the sense in which we are said to love wine or horses, i.e. not as ourselves by wishing well to them, but rather as valuing them as an advantage to ourselves. It is not difficult to prove, that sincerity is necessary to perfect charity. We see this, first, from the precept which bids us to love our neighhour as ourselves. “The end of the commandment is charity from a pure heart, and a good conscience, and an unfeigned faith,”says St. Paul (1 Tim. i. 5). Again he says, “Charity does not seek her own” (1 Cor. xiii. 5), but wishes well to those whom she loves. He gives his own example, as a lesson of charity, “not seeking that which is profitable to myself, but to many, that they may be saved” (1 Cor. x. 33).

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  My Jesus, Thou art in the clefts of the rock, where the peace and rest of Thy kingdom of love are never stirred by the wind or any storm. In Thy tenderness of pity Thou lookest on me, Thy little one, dwelling on the sand by the shore of the sea. Thou art wise, and Thy house cannot be shaken: but I am foolish, and my house is ever falling with a great fall. Round me, like a storm beating against a wall, are the blasts of the terrible ones. O my Jesus, my loved One, I come to Thee and find Thee in Thy Tabernacle. Thou givest me rest. Let me come to Thee as I ought to come, and let me be as dear to Thee as I can be, and as Thou, my God, willest me to be. Save me from all carelessness and from all forgetfulness of Thee. Save me from the guilt of ever counting Thy gifts a little thing. Save me always from the faintest shadow of unbelief. Let me find Thee more in Thy Holy Sacraments; and in them let me know more and more of Thy love. Let this Bread of Life be to me a foretaste of the Vision of Thyself; and let me see and know how this wine of God which I now drink in Communion is truly the new wine which I shall drink for ever with Thee in Thy Father’s kingdom. Dear Jesus, coming to me now in Thy white raiment, give me more love for Thy Holy Spirit, and make Him far dearer to me and far more precious to me every day. Let me ever drink in His sweetness from Thy Body, for Thou art the living rock. In the might of a great sweetness let Him be ever in my soul. Thou lovest Him with a love infinite and uncreated. Thou lovest Him in a created way with all the strength of Thy Soul, hypostatically united to Thy Godhead, and sanctified by Him. Thou Thyself, my Saviour, dost dwell in me. When I feed on Thy adorable Body and most Precious Blood Thou abidest in me and I abide in Thee. O my Jesus, keep me holy for Thyself: and let me be transfigured into a likeness of Thee. Make me, by grace, flesh of Thy flesh and bone of Thy bone; for Thou art the Spouse and Bridegroom of my soul. Make me faithful, that Thou mayest be mine for ever, and that I may be Thine for ever in the marriage-banquet of the kingdom of God, the most Holy Trinity. My Jesus, set me as a seal on Thy arm, and make me strong for God; and set me as a seal on Thy Heart, and make me loving for God. Let Thy love go through my soul; for Thy Holy Spirit is the river that makes glad the city of the King.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  Objection 2: Further, on the words of 1 Tim. 4:8: “Godliness is profitable to all things,” a gloss says: “The sum total of a Christian’s rule of life consists in mercy and godliness.” Now the Christian rule of life embraces every virtue. Therefore the sum total of all virtues is contained in mercy. Objection 3: Further, “Virtue is that which makes its subject good,” according to the Philosopher. Therefore the more a virtue makes a man like God, the better is that virtue: since man is the better for being more like God. Now this is chiefly the result of mercy, since of God is it said (Ps. 144:9) that “His tender mercies are over all His works,” and (Lk. 6:36) Our Lord said: “Be ye . . . merciful, as your Father also is merciful.” Therefore mercy is the greatest of virtues. On the contrary, The Apostle after saying (Col. 3:12): “Put ye on . . . as the elect of God . . . the bowels of mercy,” etc., adds (Col. 3:14): “Above all things have charity.” Therefore mercy is not the greatest of virtues. I answer that, A virtue may take precedence of others in two ways: first, in itself; secondly, in comparison with its subject. In itself, mercy takes precedence of other virtues, for it belongs to mercy to be bountiful to others, and, what is more, to succor others in their wants, which pertains chiefly to one who stands above. Hence mercy is accounted as being proper to God: and therein His omnipotence is declared to be chiefly manifested [*Collect, Tenth Sunday after Pentecost]. On the other hand, with regard to its subject, mercy is not the greatest virtue, unless that subject be greater than all others, surpassed by none and excelling all: since for him that has anyone above him it is better to be united to that which is above than to supply the defect of that which is beneath. [*”The quality of mercy is not strained./’ Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes/The throned monarch better than his crown.” Merchant of Venice, Act IV, Scene i.]. Hence, as regards man, who has God above him, charity which unites him to God, is greater than mercy, whereby he supplies the defects of his neighbor. But of all the virtues which relate to our neighbor, mercy is the greatest, even as its act surpasses all others, since it belongs to one who is higher and better to supply the defect of another, in so far as the latter is deficient.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  I answer that, As stated above [3091](A[1]), the praise of the voice is necessary in order to arouse man’s devotion towards God. Wherefore whatever is useful in conducing to this result is becomingly adopted in the divine praises. Now it is evident that the human soul is moved in various ways according to various melodies of sound, as the Philosopher state (Polit. viii, 5), and also Boethius (De Musica, prologue). Hence the use of music in the divine praises is a salutary institution, that the souls of the faint-hearted may be the more incited to devotion. Wherefore Augustine say (Confess. x, 33): “I am inclined to approve of the usage of singing in the church, that so by the delight of the ears the faint-hearted may rise to the feeling of devotion”: and he says of himself (Confess. ix, 6): “I wept in Thy hymns and canticles, touched to the quick by the voices of Thy sweet-attuned Church.” Reply to Objection 1: The name of spiritual canticle may be given not only to those that are sung inwardly in spirit, but also to those that are sung outwardly with the lips, inasmuch as such like canticles arouse spiritual devotion. Reply to Objection 2: Jerome does not absolutely condemn singing, but reproves those who sing theatrically in church not in order to arouse devotion, but in order to show off, or to provoke pleasure. Hence Augustine says (Confess. x, 33): “When it befalls me to be more moved by the voice than by the words sung, I confess to have sinned penally, and then had rather not hear the singer.” Reply to Objection 3: To arouse men to devotion by teaching and preaching is a more excellent way than by singing. Wherefore deacons and prelates, whom it becomes to incite men’s minds towards God by means of preaching and teaching, ought not to be instant in singing, lest thereby they be withdrawn from greater things. Hence Gregory says (Regist. iv, ep. 44): “It is a most discreditable custom for those who have been raised to the diaconate to serve as choristers, for it behooves them to give their whole time to the duty of preaching and to taking charge of the alms.” Reply to Objection 4: As the Philosopher says (Polit. viii, 6), “Teaching should not be accompanied with a flute or any artificial instrument such as the harp or anything else of this kind: but only with such things as make good hearers.” For such like musical instruments move the soul to pleasure rather than create a good disposition within it. In the Old Testament instruments of this description were employed, both because the people were more coarse and carnal—so that they needed to be aroused by such instruments as also by earthly promises—and because these material instruments were figures of something else.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  28. Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. 29. And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe. 30. Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. 31. But that the world may know that I love the Father: and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence. CHRYSOSTOM. (Hom. lxxv. 3) After saying, Peace I leave with you, which was like taking farewell, He consoles them: Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid: the two feelings of love and fear were now the uppermost in them.

• From New Testament Words (1964)

  In the Septuagint it is used 14 times of sexual love (e.g. Jer. 2.2.) and twice (e.g. Eccles. 9.1) it is used as the opposite of misos, which means hatred. Agapē has not yet become a great word but there are hints of what is to come. The Book of Wisdom uses it for the love of God (Wisdom 3.9) and for the love of wisdom (Wisdom 6.18). The Letter of Aristeas in talking of beauty says (229) that piety is closely connected with beauty, for ‘it is the pre-eminent form of beauty, and its power lies in love (agapē) which is the gift of God’. Philo uses agapē once in its nobler sense. He says that phobos (fear) and agapē (love) are kindred feelings and that both are characteristic of man’s feeling towards God. But we can only find scattered and rare occurrences of this word agapē, which is to become the very key word of NT ethics. Now we turn to the verb agapan. It occurs oftener in classical Greek than the noun, but it is not very common. It can mean to greet affectionately. It can describe the love of money or of precious stones. It can be used for being content with some thing or some situation. It is even used once (Plutarch, Pericles, 1) to describe a society lady caressing a pet lap-dog. But, the great difference between philein and agapan in classical Greek is that agapan has none of the warmth that characterizes philein. There are two good instances of this. Dio Cassius reports Antony’s famous speech about Caesar, and he says (44.48). ‘You loved (philein) him as a father, and you held him in regard (agapan) as a benefactor.’ Philein describes the warm love for a father; agapan describes the affectionate gratitude for a benefactor. In the Memorabilia Xenophon describes how Aristarchus took a problem to Socrates. Owing to war conditions he has fourteen female relatives, displaced persons, billeted on him. They have nothing to do and, not unnaturally, there is trouble. Socrates advises him to set them to work, gentlefolk or not. Aristarchus does and the situation is solved. ‘There were happy instead of gloomy faces; they loved (philein) him as a protector; he regarded them with affection (agapan) because they were useful’. (Xenophon, Memorabilia 2.7.12). Once again there is a warmth in philein which is not in agapan. It would not be true to say that the NT never uses anything else but agapē and agapan to express the Christian love. Some few times philein is used. Philein is used for the Father’s love for the Son (John 5.20); of God’s love for men (John 16.27); of the devotion that men ought to bear to Jesus (I Cor. 16.22); but the occurrences of philein in the NT are comparatively few, while agapē occurs almost 120 times and agapan more than 130 times.

• From Heptaméron (1559)

  behalf the influence of the king, the queen, and all his friends. The brother, who loved Amadour not only as a brother, but for his great worth, promised to do all he could, and bestirred himself so well that Aventurada's miserly old father forgot his avarice, and suffered him- self to be moved by Amadour's virtues, as they were represented to him by the Countess of Aranda, the beautiful Florida, and the young Count of Aranda, who was beginning, as he grew up, to love people of merit. After the marriage had been agreed on between the re- lations, the major-domo made his brother return to Spain under favour of a truce then pending between the two kings. During this truce the King of Spain withdrew to Madrid, to avoid the bad air which was in several places, and at the request of the Countess of Aranda gave his sanction to the marriage of the heiress-Duchess of Medinaceli with the little Count of Aranda. The wedding was celebrated at the palace of Madrid. Ama- dour was present, and turned the occasion to such account that he married her whom he had inspired with more love than he felt for her, and whom he made his wife only that he might have a plausible pretext for frequenting the place where his mind incessantly dwelt. After his marriage he became so bold and so familiar in the family of the Countess of Aranda that no more distrust was entertained of him than if he had been a woman. Though he was then but twenty-two years old, he was so prudent that the countess communicated all her affairs to him, and commanded her daughter and her son to converse with him and follow all his advice. Hav- ing gained this capital point, he conducted himself so discreetly and with such address that even she whom he loved never suspected it. As she was very fond of Amadour's wife, she had such confidence in the husband First day.] QUEEN OF NAVARRE. 75 that she concealed nothing from him, and even declared to him all the love she felt for the son of the Fortunate Infante ; and Amadour, whose views were all directed to gaining her entirely, talked to her incessantly of the young prince ; for he cared not what was the subject on which he spoke to her, provided he could hold her long in conversation.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  Let my Beloved come into His garden and eat the fruit of His apple-trees. I am come into My garden, O my sister, My Spouse; I have gathered My myrrh, with My aromatical spices. I have eaten the honeycomb with My honey; I have drunk My wine with My milk; eat, O friends, and drink, and be inebriated, O dearly beloved. I sleep, but my heart is watching; it is the voice of my Beloved knocking: Open to Me, My sister, My love, My dove, My undefiled; for My head is full of dew and My locks of the drops of the nights.… I adjure you, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, if you find my Beloved, that you tell Him that I languish with love. Cantic. 5:1, 2, 8. I will take hold of Thee and bring Thee into my mother’s house: there Thou shalt teach me, and I will give Thee a cup of spiced wine, and new wine of my pomegranates.… Who is this that cometh up from the desert, flowing with delights, leaning on her Beloved?.… Thou that dwellest in the gardens, the friends hearken; make me hear Thy voice. Cantic. 8:2, 5, 13. The Lord said unto Moses, Take unto thee spices, stacte and onycha, galbanum of sweet savour and the clearest frankincense. All shall be of one weight. And thou shalt make incense compounded by the work of the perfumer, well mixed together, and pure, and most worthy of sanctification. And when thou hast beaten all into very small powder, thou shalt set of it before the tabernacle of the testimony, in the place where I will appear to thee. Most holy shall this incense be to you. You shall not make such a composition for your own uses, because it is holy to the Lord. Ex. 30:34–37. My delights were to be with the children of men. Now, therefore, ye children, hear Me: Blessed are they that keep My ways. Prov. 8:31, 32. 3. Love of our neighbour; I, as a fruitful olive-tree in the house of God, have hoped in the mercy of God for ever. Ps. 51:10. There is a treasure to be desired, and oil in the dwelling of the just. Prov. 21:20. Exercise thyself unto godliness; for bodily exercise is profitable to little: but godliness is profitable to all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come. 1 St. Tim. 4:7, 8.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  Reply to Objection 3: Order belongs to reason as the faculty that orders, and to the appetitive power as to the faculty which is ordered. It is in this way that order is stated to be in charity. Whether God ought to be loved more than our neighbor?Objection 1: It would seem that God ought not to be loved more than our neighbor. For it is written (1 Jn. 4:20): “He that loveth not his brother whom he seeth, how can he love God, Whom he seeth not?” Whence it seems to follow that the more a thing is visible the more lovable it is, since loving begins with seeing, according to Ethic. ix, 5,12. Now God is less visible than our neighbor. Therefore He is less lovable, out of charity, than our neighbor. Objection 2: Further, likeness causes love, according to Ecclus. 13:19: “Every beast loveth its like.” Now man bears more likeness to his neighbor than to God. Therefore man loves his neighbor, out of charity, more than he loves God. Objection 3: Further, what charity loves in a neighbor, is God, according to Augustine (De Doctr. Christ. i, 22,27). Now God is not greater in Himself than He is in our neighbor. Therefore He is not more to be loved in Himself than in our neighbor. Therefore we ought not to love God more than our neighbor. On the contrary, A thing ought to be loved more, if others ought to be hated on its account. Now we ought to hate our neighbor for God’s sake, if, to wit, he leads us astray from God, according to Lk. 14:26: “If any man come to Me and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, end children, and brethren, and sisters . . . he cannot be My disciple.” Therefore we ought to love God, out of charity, more than our neighbor. I answer that, Each kind of friendship regards chiefly the subject in which we chiefly find the good on the fellowship of which that friendship is based: thus civil friendship regards chiefly the ruler of the state, on whom the entire common good of the state depends; hence to him before all, the citizens owe fidelity and obedience. Now the friendship of charity is based on the fellowship of happiness, which consists essentially in God, as the First Principle, whence it flows to all who are capable of happiness. Therefore God ought to be loved chiefly and before all out of charity: for He is loved as the cause of happiness, whereas our neighbor is loved as receiving together with us a share of happiness from Him.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  On the second point: the philosopher says in the same passage that “ men wish to be loved in so far as they wish to be honoured. ” For just as honour is shown to a man as a testimony of the good that is in him, so the fact that he is loved shows that there is some good in him, since only what is good can be loved. Thus men wish to be honoured for the sake of something else. But those who have charity wish to love for the sake of love itself, since love itself is the good of charity, just as the act of any virtue is the good of that virtue. The wish to love therefore belongs to charity more properly than the wish to be loved. On the third point: some men do love on account of being loved. But this does not mean that they love for the sake of being loved. It means that love is one way of inducing a man to love. ARTICLE TWO Whether the Love which is an Act of Charity is the Same as Benevolence1. It seems that the love which is an act of charity is nothing other than benevolence. For the philosopher says that “ to love is to will good for someone, ” and this is benevolence. The act of charity is therefore nothing other than benevolence. 2. Again, an act belongs to the same power as its habit, and it was said in Q. 24, Art. 1, that the habit of charity belongs to the will. It follows that charity is an act of the will. But it is not an act of charity unless it intends good, and this is benevolence. The act of charity is therefore nothing other than benevolence. 3. Again, in 9 Ethics 4 the philosopher mentions five characteristics of friendship — that a man should will good for his friend, that he should wish him to be and to live, that he should enjoy his company, that he should choose the same things, and that he should grieve and rejoice together with him. Now the first two of these apply to benevolence. Hence the first act of charity is benevolence. On the other hand: the philosopher says that “ benevolence is neither friendship nor love, but the beginning of friendship ” (9 Ethics 5). Now we said in Q. 23, Art. 1, that charity is friendship. It follows that benevolence is not the same as the love which is an act of charity.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  Whether Charity is a Virtue1. It seems that charity is not a virtue. For charity is a kind of friendship, and it is plain from 8 Ethics 1 that the philosophers do not regard friendship as a virtue, since they include it neither in the moral virtues nor in the intellectual virtues. Hence charity is not a virtue. 2. Again, it is said in 1 De Coelo et Mundi 116 that a virtue is what is ultimate in respect of a power. But charity does not come last. Rather do joy and peace come last. Hence it seems that charity is not a virtue, but that joy and peace are virtues, rather than charity. 3. Again, every virtue is possessed as a habit which is an accident. But charity is not possessed as an accident, since it is nobler than the soul, whereas no accident is nobler than its subject. Hence charity is not a virtue. On the other hand: Augustine says {De Mor. Eccles. 11): “ Charity is the virtue by which we love God, and which unites us to God when our attitude is faultless. ” I answer: human actions are good in so far as they are regulated by their proper rule and measure. Human virtue therefore consists in the attainment of the rule of human actions, since it is the principle of all good human actions. Now we said in Q. 17, Art. 1, that the rule of human action is twofold, namely, human reason, and God himself. Accordingly, while “ that which accords with right reason ” serves as a definition of moral virtue (6 Ethics 2), the attainment of God constitutes the nature of this virtue of charity, just as we said that it constitutes the nature of faith and of hope (Q. 4, Art. 5; Q. 17, Art. I). Charity is therefore a virtue, since it attains God through uniting us to God, as the quotation from Augustine affirms.