Trust

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 11 of 29 · 20 per page

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

  2. Next, there is the proof from signs which God has chosen; and the force of these signs is in this, that as the sign is so is the thing signified. Now there is a twofold sign, a sign of God and a sign of man; but whereas a human sign is artificial, the sign of God is sacramental. Again, as we have already seen in Meditation IX., a sign of man has a meaning according to his intention, and is double. In one case it does not contain what it signifies, as the sign of a hoop, which contains no wine; but in the other case it does contain what it signifies, as a pasty signifies meat and contains it, hidden within. In like manner the signs which God has chosen for the Sacraments have a twofold meaning according to His intention. There were the Sacraments of the law, which did not contain what they signified, and did not effect what they figured, such as the Paschal lamb and the like, as we have already seen. But the Sacraments of the Gospel contain what they signify. Thus the Holy Eucharist contains what it signifies. For according to the intention of God it signifies a holy thing, that is, the Body of Christ, and contains it. Hence He says, ‘This is My Body.’ The outward sign is the species of bread, and the inward gift is the Body of Christ. Thus there are new signs and new miracles; for the old signs, which did not contain the grace they signified, have passed away. St. Augustin says, ‘Hence they are called Sacraments, as being signs of a holy thing, because one thing is seen in them, and another thing is known to be there. That which is seen has a bodily appearance, but that which is known to be there has spiritual fruit. In the species of bread and wine, which we see, we honour our Lord, whom we do not see.’

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

  Reply to Objection 1: Nature is compared to charity which is the principle of merit, as matter to form: whereas faith is compared to charity as the disposition which precedes the ultimate form. Now it is evident that the subject or the matter cannot act save by virtue of the form, nor can a preceding disposition, before the advent of the form: but after the advent of the form, both the subject and the preceding disposition act by virtue of the form, which is the chief principle of action, even as the heat of fire acts by virtue of the substantial form of fire. Accordingly neither nature nor faith can, without charity, produce a meritorious act; but, when accompanied by charity, the act of faith is made meritorious thereby, even as an act of nature, and a natural act of the free-will. Reply to Objection 2: Two things may be considered in science: namely the scientist’s assent to a scientific fact and his consideration of that fact. Now the assent of science is not subject to free-will, because the scientist is obliged to assent by force of the demonstration, wherefore scientific assent is not meritorious. But the actual consideration of what a man knows scientifically is subject to his free-will, for it is in his power to consider or not to consider. Hence scientific consideration may be meritorious if it be referred to the end of charity, i.e. to the honor of God or the good of our neighbor. On the other hand, in the case of faith, both these things are subject to the free-will so that in both respects the act of faith can be meritorious: whereas in the case of opinion, there is no firm assent, since it is weak and infirm, as the Philosopher observes (Poster. i, 33), so that it does not seem to proceed from a perfect act of the will: and for this reason, as regards the assent, it does not appear to be very meritorious, though it can be as regards the actual consideration. Reply to Objection 3: The believer has sufficient motive for believing, for he is moved by the authority of Divine teaching confirmed by miracles, and, what is more, by the inward instinct of the Divine invitation: hence he does not believe lightly. He has not, however, sufficient reason for scientific knowledge, hence he does not lose the merit. Whether reasons in support of what we believe lessen the merit of faith?Objection 1: It would seem that reasons in support of what we believe lessen the merit of faith. For Gregory says (Hom. xxvi in Evang.) that “there is no merit in believing what is shown by reason.” If, therefore, human reason provides sufficient proof, the merit of faith is altogether taken away. Therefore it seems that any kind of human reasoning in support of matters of faith, diminishes the merit of believing.

• From Heptaméron (1559)

  " Since you accuse me, madam, of speaking with au- dacity," replied Rolandine, " I am resolved to say no more, unless you are pleased to permit me to speak.' The queen having given her permission, she continued : " It is not for me, madam, to speak to you with audacity. As you are my mistress, and the greatest princess in Christendom, I must always entertam for you the re- spect which is your due ; and it has never been my in- tention to depart from it. But as I have no advocate but the truth, and as it is known to myself alone, I am obliged to speak it boldly, in the hope that if I have the good fortune to make you thoroughly cognizant of it, you will not believe me to be such as you have been pleased to call me. I am not afraid that any mortal creature should know in what manner I have conducted myself in the affair which is laid to my charge, for I know that I have not done anything contrary either to God or to my hon- our. This, madam, is what makes me speak without fear, being well assured that Pie who sees my heart is with me ; and with such a judge on my side, I should be lhi>dJay.\ QUEEN OF NAVARRE. 207

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

  1:6–86. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. AUGUSTINE. (Tr. ii. c. 2) What is said above, refers to the Divinity of Christ. He came to us in the form of man, but man in such sense, as that the Godhead was concealed within Him. And therefore there was sent before a great man, to declare by his witness that He was more than man. And who was this? He was a man. THEOPHYLACT. Not an Angel, as many have held. The Evangelist here refutes such a notion. AUGUSTINE. (Tr. ii) And how could he declare the truth concerning God, unless he were sent from God. CHRYSOSTOM. (Hom. vi. [v.] c. 1) After this esteem nothing that he says as human; for he speaketh not his own, but his that sent him. And therefore the Prophet calls him a messenger, I send My messenger, (Mal. 3:1) for it is the excellence of a messenger, to say nothing of his own. But the expression, was sent, does not mean his entrance into life, but to his office. As Esaias was sent on his commission, not from any place out of the world, but from where he saw the Lord sitting upon His high and lofty throne; (Isai. 6:1.) in like manner John was sent from the desert to baptize; for he says, He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, the same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. (John 1:33) AUGUSTINE. (Tr. ii) What was he called? whose name was John? ALCUIN. That is, the grace of God, or one in whom is grace, who by his testimony first made known to the world the grace of the New Testament, that is, Christ. Or John may be taken to mean, to whom it is given: because that through the grace of God, to him it was given, not only to herald, but also to baptize the King of kings. AUGUSTINE. (Tr. ii. c. 6) Wherefore came he? The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light.

• From Heptaméron (1559)

  The husband assured him he had never harboured such a thought, and that those who had spread this re- port had foully lied. " I know well," said the friend, " that jealousy is a passion as insupportable as love ; and though you were jealous, and even of me, I should not be angry with you, for you could not help it. But I should have reason to complain of a thing which it is in your own power to do or not to do, and that is, to conceal the matter from me, seeing that you have never yet concealed from me any opinion or emotion you have known. On my part, if I were in love with your wife, you ought not to make it a crime in me, for love is a fire which no one can master ; but if I concealed the fact from you, and sought means to make it known to your wife, I should be the worst man that ever lived. Be- sides, though you have a good wife and a worthy, I c^ assure you that, even though she were not yours, she is, of all the women I have ever seen, the one I should give myself the least concern ai)out. I pray you, however, if you have the least suspicion, to tell me so, in order to take measures accordingly, so that our long friendship Fifth day. QUEEN OF NA VARRE. 407 may not be broken for the sake of a woman ; for even if I loved your wife above all the women in the world, I would never speak to her in that case, because I prefer your friendship to any other." The husband protested to him with great oaths that he never had such a thought, and begged that he would continue with him in all respects upon the old footing. " I will do so, since you desire it," replied the friend ; " but allow me to tell you that I never will live with you if, after this, you have such a thought of me, and keep a secret from me, or take it amiss."

• From The Hours (1998)

  Leonard looks up at her, still wearing, for a moment, the scowl he has brought to the proofs. It is an expression she trusts and fears, his eyes blazing and impenetrably dark under his heavy brows, the corners of his mouth turned down in an expression of judgment that is severe but not in any way petulant or trivial—the frown of a deity, all-seeing and weary, hoping for the best from humankind, knowing just how much to expect. It is the expression he brings to all written work, including, and especially, her own. As he looks at her, though, the expression fades almost immediately and is replaced by the milder, kinder face of the husband who has nursed her through her worst periods, who does not demand what she can’t provide and who urges on her, sometimes successfully, a glass of milk every morning at eleven. “Good morning,” she says. “Good morning. How was your sleep?” How was your sleep, he asks, as if sleep were not an act but a creature that could be either docile or fierce. Virginia says, “It was uneventful. Are those Tom’s?” “Yes.” “How do they look?” He scowls again. “I’ve found an error already, and I’m not quite through the second page.” “One error at the beginning is quite likely just that. It’s early in the day to be so bent on irritation, don’t you think?” “Have you had breakfast?” he asks. “Yes.” “Liar.” “I’m having coffee with cream for breakfast. It’s enough.” “It’s far from enough. I’m going to have Nelly bring you a bun and some fruit.” “If you send Nelly in to interrupt me I won’t be responsible for my actions.” “You must eat,” he says. “It doesn’t have to be much.” “I’ll eat later. I’m going to work now.” He hesitates, then nods grudgingly. He does not, will not, interfere with her work. Still, Virginia refusing to eat is not a good sign. “You will have lunch,” he says. “A true lunch, soup, pudding, and all. By force, if it comes to that.”

• From Heptaméron (1559)

  me. The only favour I ask of you, my liege, is that you will swear on the faith of a prince and a Christian, never to reveal the secret which you force from me." The duke promised him, with all the oaths he could think of, never to tell his secret to anyone, either by word, act, or signs ; and the gentleman, relying on the good faith of a prince whom he knew, put the first hand to his own undoing, saying to him, " It is seven years, my lord, since having known your niece, the Lady du Verger, as a widow and disengaged, I tried to acquire her goodwill. As I was not of birth to marry her, I contented myself with being received by her as a lover, in which I suc- ceeded. Our intercourse has been conducted hitherto with so much prudence that no one has come to the knowledge of it except you, my lord, into whose hands I put my life and honour, entreating you to keep the secret, and to have no less esteem for my lady your niece, than whom I do not think there is under heaven a creature more perfect." The duke was delighted with this declaration, for knowing the extraordinary beauty of his niece, he doubt<id not that she was more capable of pleasing him than his wife. But not conceiving it possible that such a mystery should have been carried on without adequate means, he begged to know how her lover managed to see her. The gentleman told him that his mistress's chamber opened on a garden, and that on the days when he was to visit her a little gate was left open, through which he entered on foot, and advanced until he heard the barking of a little dog, which the lady let loose in the garden after her women had all retired ; that then he went to her, and conversed with her all night, and on his departure appointed the day when he was to come again, in which he had never failed, except for indis- ^32 THE HEPTAMERON OF THE [Novel 70.

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

  Reply to Objection 1: The gift of habitual grace is not therefore given to us that we may no longer need the Divine help; for every creature needs to be preserved in the good received from Him. Hence if after having received grace man still needs the Divine help, it cannot be concluded that grace is given to no purpose, or that it is imperfect, since man will need the Divine help even in the state of glory, when grace shall be fully perfected. But here grace is to some extent imperfect, inasmuch as it does not completely heal man, as stated above. Reply to Objection 2: The operation of the Holy Ghost, which moves and protects, is not circumscribed by the effect of habitual grace which it causes in us; but beyond this effect He, together with the Father and the Son, moves and protects us. Reply to Objection 3: This argument merely proves that man needs no further habitual grace. Whether man possessed of grace needs the help of grace in order to persevere?Objection 1: It would seem that man possessed of grace needs no help to persevere. For perseverance is something less than virtue, even as continence is, as is clear from the Philosopher (Ethic. vii, 7,9). Now since man is justified by grace, he needs no further help of grace in order to have the virtues. Much less, therefore, does he need the help of grace to have perseverance. Objection 2: Further, all the virtues are infused at once. But perseverance is put down as a virtue. Hence it seems that, together with grace, perseverance is given to the other infused virtues. Objection 3: Further, as the Apostle says (Rom. 5:20) more was restored to man by Christ’s gift, than he had lost by Adam’s sin. But Adam received what enabled him to persevere; and thus man does not need grace in order to persevere. On the contrary, Augustine says (De Persev. ii): “Why is perseverance besought of God, if it is not bestowed by God? For is it not a mocking request to seek what we know He does not give, and what is in our power without His giving it?” Now perseverance is besought by even those who are hallowed by grace; and this is seen, when we say “Hallowed be Thy name,” which Augustine confirms by the words of Cyprian (De Correp. et Grat. xii). Hence man, even when possessed of grace, needs perseverance to be given to him by God.

• From The Principles of Psychology (Volume 1 of 2) (1890)

  On waking from sleep, we usually know that we have been unconscious, and we often have an accurate judgment of how long. The judgment here is certainly an inference from sensible signs, and its ease is due to long practice in the particular field.[224] The result of it, however, is that the consciousness is, for itself , not what it was in the former case, but interrupted and continuous, in the mere time-sense of the words. But in the other sense of continuity, the sense of the parts being inwardly connected and belonging together because they are parts of a common whole, the consciousness remains sensibly continuous and one. What now is the common whole? The natural name for it is myself, I , or me . When Paul and Peter wake up in the same bed, and recognize that they have been asleep, each one of them mentally reaches back and makes connection with but one of the two streams of thought which were broken by the sleeping hours. As the current of an electrode buried in the ground unerringly finds its way to its own similarly buried mate, across no matter how much intervening earth; so Peter's present instantly finds out Peter's past, and never by mistake knits itself on to that of Paul. Paul's thought in turn is as little liable to go astray. The past thought of Peter is appropriated by the present Peter alone. He may have a knowledge , and a correct one too, of what Paul's last drowsy states of mind were as he sank into sleep, but it is an entirely different sort of knowledge from that which he has of his own last states. He remembers his own states, whilst he only conceives Paul's. Remembrance is like direct feeling; its object is suffused with a warmth and intimacy to which no object of mere conception ever attains. This quality of warmth and intimacy and immediacy is what Peter's present thought also possesses for itself. So sure as this present is me, is mine, it says, so sure is anything else that comes with the same warmth and intimacy and immediacy, me and mine. What the qualities called warmth and intimacy may in themselves be will have to be matter for future consideration. But whatever past feeling appear with those qualities must be admitted to receive the greeting of the present mental state, to be owned by it, and accepted as belonging together with it in a common self. This community of self is what the time-gap cannot break in twain, and is why a present thought, although not ignorant of the time-gap, can still regard itself as continuous with certain chosen portions of the past. Consciousness, then, does not appear to itself chopped up in bits. Such words as 'chain' or 'train' do not describe it fitly as it presents itself in the first instance. It is nothing jointed; if flows.

• From Love & Sex: A Christian Guide to Healthy Intimacy (2018)

  “Yes, that was scary. Have you allowed yourself to grieve what was done to you?” Olivia asked. “No, this is the first time I have said it to anyone,” Kaycie admitted. “I feel sick he would do that to you,” Mary Francis validated. “No wonder you don’t like oral sex.” “Yeah, it makes sense now,” Kaycie reflected. “Would it be helpful if I shared how my husband and I worked through some of this?” Olivia asked the women. Olivia never wanted the group to be about her but about and for the women in the group. But sometimes a personal example can be therapeutic. The women unanimously said yes. “You may remember how I shared at the beginning I experienced sexual abuse? Well, oral was part of that. So, it really triggered me. I finally realized the most helpful thing I could do was explain that to my husband. I just told him that it triggered me. And he totally understood, and my honesty invited his. He shared with me how a friend of his older sisters would sneak into his room and perform oral sex on him in the middle of the night. “We both shared our shameful experiences with each other and prayed God would redeem those memories and experiences for us. No pressure, no shame, and lots of grace. One of the most healing things my husband did for me was when we were making love and something triggered me—I would stop and ask him to hold me. He would, and then he would pray for me. I felt safe with him. I figured if a man would stop in the middle of making love and hold me and pray for me that I was safe with him. That feeling of safety has helped us become freer sexually with each other. What was once a taboo no longer is. “But here’s the important thing. There are no shoulds when it comes to making love, other than it should be mutually pleasurable. There are lots of ways to have fun together, and, if you don’t like oral sex, don’t feel like you have to do it to be a good lover. But don’t shut out the idea either. Try to work through the trigger and then you can possibly re-frame it. What I mean by that is oral sex started as something shameful and confusing and scary for me, but once I understood that what happened was abuse, I could grieve what happened to me. I could then sort through what was bad and what was good. Sexual abuse is always bad, but making love with a husband who loves you is good. “Does that help? Please, always feel like you can ask me anything,” Olivia said.

• From Love & Sex: A Christian Guide to Healthy Intimacy (2018)

  2. “Attachment—Attachment is when we allow ourselves to connect deeply to another person. Anxiety and avoidance are acknowledged and overcome by practicing vulnerability and openness about fears. Help is asked for and sought, when one or both partners find themselves stuck in negative relational patterns. Each take personal responsibility to do his or her own growth work. They avoid the blame game and instead ask themselves the question, What is my part in this? Attachment takes time to build and includes commitment and covenant. To form a secure, solid attachment, people want to know three things: 1) Do you have my back? 2) Can I count on you? 3) Are you there for me? When those three questions are answered, secure attachment can form. Secure attachment makes possible true, lasting, sexual passion. 3. “Passion—To build passion, fear of closeness is acknowledged and processed, and both spouses are willing to be naked and unashamed, because trust has been built. This couple has built a solid friendship which includes empathic caring, listening, and emotional closeness. They have figured out how to be connected but separate. They do not avoid or cling, but celebrate differences and self-differentiation, which develops through secure attachment. Because of this, they have the potential to become lovers—where they share their bodies, welcome sexual arousal, desire, curiosity, and play. “Together and separately, they have worked on becoming well-defined, mature lovers, able to communicate likes and pleasurable feelings, make requests, and ask for what is desired sexually. Passion is allowed to ebb and flow and develop over time. False sexual expectations are worked through and bridges are built to overcome sexual dysfunctions and difficulties. Grace for the humanity of the other is extended and practiced, so passion has fertile soil in which to grow. “We realize that anything beautiful takes time to build. Intimacy, attachment, and passion, are not grown overnight or casually, but take deliberate pursuit. It’s true that anything worth creating takes time, effort, and diligence. “How do we get to intimacy, attachment, and passion? Let’s unpack the term intimacy. Genesis 4:1 says, “Adam knew his wife Eve.” Adam yada Eve, a Greek term meaning to perceive, to know intimately, to understand, to experience. It means Adam sexually knew, experienced, and understood his wife Eve. “Genesis 18:19 says, ‘God said, For I have known (chosen) him’ (Amplified Bible Translation). God is saying He knew Abraham personally and intimately. Yada also speaks of man knowing God. Moses asked the Lord to teach him His ways so he may know Him; to know Him is to have an experiential knowledge of Him. Paul said in Philippians 3:10, ‘I desire to know Him and the power of His resurrection.’ Paul desired to intimately know God.

• From New Testament Words (1964)

  (ii) Sōtēria is salvation from danger. When the disciples were in peril they cried out to be ‘saved’ (Matt. 8.25; 14.30). This does not mean protection from all peril and from all harm, but it does mean that the man who knows that he is within the sōtēria of God knows, as Rupert Brooke had it, that he is ‘safe when all safety’s lost’. It is the conviction that nothing in life or in death can separate him from the love of God. (iii) Sōtēria is salvation from ‘life’s infection’. A man is saved from a crooked and perverse generation (Acts 2.40). The man who knows the sōtēria of God has within him and upon him a prophylactic quality, a divine antiseptic which enables him to walk in the world and yet to keep his garments unspotted from the world. (iv) Sōtēria is salvation from ‘lostness’. It was to seek and to save the lost that Jesus came (Matt. 18.11; Luke 19.10). It was to rescue a man when he was on the way to a situation in which he would lose his life and lose his soul. It was to turn him from the way that led to the most deadly kind of death to the way that led to the most vital kind of life. (v) Sōtēria is salvation from ‘sin’. Jesus was called Jesus because he was to save his people from their sins (Matt. 1.21). By himself man is the slave of sin. He cannot liberate himself from it. He can diagnose his situation easily enough, but he cannot cure his disease. The saving power of Christ alone can do that. ‘He breaks the power of cancelled sin. He sets sin’s prisoner free.’ (vi) Sōtēria is salvation from ‘wrath’ (Rom. 5.9). The NT cannot be emptied of the conception of judgment. That conception is fundamental to it. Jesus Christ did something, God did something, which freed men from the wrath of injured holiness and transgressed justice. In Jesus Christ something happened which put a man into a new relationship with God. (vii) One last thing we may note. Sōtēria is eschatological. That is to say, we can begin to enjoy it here and now, but its full impact and its full wonder will only come to us in the day when Jesus Christ is enthroned King of all the world (Rom. 13.11; I Cor. 5.5; II Tim. 4.18; Heb. 9.28; I Pet. 1.5; Rev. 12.10). It is quite true that the Second Coming of Christ is not a popular doctrine. But it does conserve the tremendous truth that this world is going somewhere, and when the world reaches its final consummation so will sōtēria be finally perfected. Sōtēria is that which saves a man from all that would ruin his soul in this life and in the life to come.

• From New Testament Words (1964)

  The NT describes it as a battle, a campaign, a race, an endurance test; but after it is ended there comes the rest of God; but rest is something which no man can enjoy unless he has done his best. We must note still further the nature of this promise which is offered to the Christian. (i) It is a promise of God (Luke 24.49; Acts 1.4). Here we find something which connects with one of the classical usages of these words. We saw, when we were studying the classical usage, that sometimes these words stood for a profession without a corresponding performance. That is still so in the NT. I Tim. 2.10 urges Christian women to live a life which befits the faith which they profess. I Tim. 6.20, 21 speaks of the vain and empty knowledge which the intellectualists of the world profess. II Peter 2.19 speaks of those who make an illusory offer of liberty while they themselves are slaves to corruption. The NT more than once goes out of its way to stress the fact that God’s promises, God’s professions are true and dependable. God’s promises are true for two reasons. (a) They are true because God is faithful. ‘He is faithful that promised’ (Heb. 10.23). God cannot lie (Titus 1.2). God even guaranteed the promises by swearing by himself (Heb. 6.17). The promises of God are guaranteed by the truth of God. (b) They are true because God is powerful. God is able to perform that which he has promised (Rom. 4.21). The promises of God are therefore guaranteed by the power of God. Men’s promises may be empty professions, but God’s promises are to be utterly relied on because God’s truth cannot lie, and God’s power cannot fail. (ii) The promises of God are founded on grace and not on law. We already saw that epaggelia in classical Greek is a promise and an offer freely and voluntarily made. The promises of God are not dependent on man’s merit or man’s performance; they are dependent solely on the sheer generosity of God. God’s promises were made, not because of man’s virtue, but because of God’s mercy. Behind them is not man’s merit, but God’s love. (iii) The promises of God are therefore to be appropriated by faith (Rom. 4.14, 20; Gal. 3.24). They cannot be earned; they must be accepted. Man must rid himself of the pride which seeks to earn God’s promises by works; he must have the humility which is ever content to be in God’s debt, and which accepts God’s promises in faith. (iv) In spite of that the promises of God are the motive of man’s amendment. It is because they have the promises that men must cleanse themselves (II Cor.

• From New Testament Words (1964)

  Originally entugchanein meant quite simply to meet a person, to fall in with a person, to come close to a person. When we meet a person we talk to him and he talks to us; and so the word went on to mean to converse with a person; even further, it began to mean to have intimate fellowship and communion with a person. For instance, when Socrates was near the end, and when he was preparing to die, he told his friends that he welcomed death because after death he would have converse with Palamedes and Ajax and others of the great men of the ancient days who died through unjust judgment (Plato, Apology 41b). To Socrates the reward of death was intimate fellowship with the great and good who had gone before. Here then is the first idea in entugchanein. It speaks of the right to approach God; it speaks of the intimate fellowship which the Christian can enjoy with God; it means that we do not make our requests to God from a great distance and across some infinity of space, but that we can talk and converse with him as a man talks with his friend. As we meet our friends, so we can meet God. But the word develops still another meaning. It begins by meaning simply to meet a person; it goes on to mean to have intimate converse and fellowship with a person; but finally it becomes in the papyri an almost technical word for presenting a petition to someone in authority and especially to the king. Enteuxis, which originally meant simply a meeting, comes to be the usual word for a petition presented to the king. There is an interesting papyrus which tells of twins, Thaues and Taous, who served in the Temple of Serapis at Memphis. They felt that they were being unjustly treated and that they were not receiving the treatment which they had been promised. Ptolemy Philometor and his queen, Cleopatra the Second, came on a visit to the temple, and the twins seized the opportunity to present the king with an enteuxis, a petition, which set out their grievances and which appealed for justice. Enteuxis, then, is the technical word for a petition to a king; and entugchanein is the technical word for presenting such a petition. Here then is a tremendous picture. When we pray we are in the position of those who have undisputed access that they may bring their petitions to the king. When we pray it is to a king we come. Therein is set forth at once both the tremendous privilege of prayer, and the tremendous power of prayer. We have the privilege of entry to the presence of the King of kings; and when we enter there we have all his power and greatness on which we may draw. Prayer is nothing less than entering into the presence of the Almighty and receiving the resources of the Eternal.

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

  AUGUSTINE. (Aug. Tr. iv.v. and vi. sparsim.) Let us turn to the other Evangelists, who relate the matter more clearly, and we shall find most satisfactorily, that the dove descended when our Lord ascended from the water. If then the dove descended after baptism, but John said before the baptism, I have need to be baptized of Thee, he knew Him before His baptism also. How then said he, I knew him not, but He which sent me to baptize? Was this the first revelation made to John of Christ’s person, or was it not rather a fuller disclosure of what had been already revealed? John knew the Lord to be the Son of God, knew that He would baptize with the Holy Ghost: for before Christ came to the river, many having come together to hear John, he said unto them, He that cometh after me is mightier than I: He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire. (Matt. 3:11) What then? He did not know that our Lord (lest Paul or Peter might say, my baptism, as we find Paul did say, my Gospel,) would have and retain to Himself the power of baptism, the ministering of it however passing to good and bad indiscriminately. What hindrance is the badness of the minister, when the Lord is good? So then we baptize again after John’s baptism; after a homicide’s we baptize not: because John gave his own baptism, the homicide gives Christ’s; which is so holy a sacrament, that not even a homicide’s ministration can pollute it. Our Lord could, had He so willed, have given power to any servant of His to give baptism as it were in His own stead; and to the baptism, thus transferred to the servant, have imparted the same power, that it would have had, when given by Himself. But this He did not choose to do; that the hope of the baptized might be directed to Him, Who had baptized them; He wished not the servant to place hope in the servant. And again, had He given this power to servants, there would have been as many baptisms as servants; as there had been the baptism of John, so should we have had the baptism of Paul and of Peter. It is by this power then, which Christ retains in His own possession exclusively, that the unity of the Church is established; of which it is said, My dove is one. (Cant. 6:9) A man may have a baptism besides the dove; but that any besides the dove should profit, is impossible.

• From Blue Like Jazz (2003)

  “The fruit of obedience,” he said, looking very pastoral. “When we do what God wants us to do, we are blessed, we are spiritually healthy. God wants us to give a portion of our money to His work on earth. By setting aside money from every check, you are trusting God to provide. He wants you to get over that fear—that fear of trusting Him. It is a scary place, but that is where you have to go as a follower of Christ. There are times when my wife and I don’t have enough money to cover bills, but we know the first bill, the first payment we make, is to the church. That is most important. If the other bills get neglected, then we need to watch how we are spending money. And there are times when we have found ourselves in that situation. But it works out. We are getting good at trusting God, and we are getting good at managing money.” The next week I emptied my checking account, which had about eight dollars in it, and I gave it to the church. Another check came a few days later, and I gave 10 percent of that to the church, then I got another writing gig with a magazine in Atlanta, and as I deposited that check into my account I wrote a check to the church. One after another, I started getting called to speak at retreats and conferences that usually pay pretty well, and each time I would write a check to the church. Since then, since that conversation with Rick, I have given at least 10 percent of every dollar I make, just like Curt. And I have never not had rent. For more than a year my checking account had hovered or dipped just over or just under zero, and suddenly I had money to spare. I decided I would open a savings account in case some day I would get married and have a family, and with each bit of money that came in I would give 10 percent to the church and 10 percent to the savings account. I was actually budgeting money. I had never done that before. But that is not the best part. The best part is what tithing has done for my relationship with God. Before, I felt like I was always going to God with my fingers crossed, the way a child feels around his father when he knows he has told terrible lies. God knew where I was, He didn’t love me any different when I was holding out on Him, it’s just that I didn’t feel clean around Him, and you know how that can affect things.

• From New Testament Words (1964)

  If we really believe that God is Father and that God is love, that God cares enough for men to send his Son into the world to die for them, it literally makes all the difference in the world to life, for it means that life is in the hands of the love of God. But further, this belief means believing that Jesus is who he claims to be. Obviously the reliance that we can place on any statement depends entirely on the position of the person who makes it. We are bound to ask: How can I believe for sure that what Jesus tells me about God is true? The answer is that we believe what Jesus tells us about God, because we believe that Jesus had a unique right to speak about God, because we believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Therefore we enter into eternal life by believing that Jesus is the Son of God. But belief goes even further than that. We believe that God is Father and that God is love, because we believe that Jesus, being the Son of God, has told us the truth about God—and then we act on the belief. We live life in the certainty that we can do nothing other than render a perfect trust and a perfect obedience to God. Eternal life is nothing else than the life of God himself. We enter into that life through believing in Jesus Christ. That belief involves three elements. (i) It involves believing that God is the kind of God Jesus told men about. (ii) It involves the certainty that Jesus is the Son of God, and therefore has the right to speak about God in a way that no one else ever could or ever will be able to speak. (iii) It involves living all life on the assumption that these things are true. When we do that, we share nothing less than the life of God, the power and the peace which God alone can give. We have already said that eternal life is the gift of God; all God’s gifts are freely given, but they are not given away. They are there for the taking, but they must be taken. Let us use a human analogy. All the beauty and the wealth and the loveliness and the wisdom of classical literature are there for any man to take; but before he can enter into them, he must undergo the work, the study and the discipline which the learning of Latin and Greek demands. God’s offer of eternal life is there; but man must claim it and enter into it before he can receive it. (i) Eternal life demands knowledge of God. Eternal life means ‘to know the only true God’ (John 17.3). Now man can only know God through three avenues.

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

  CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA. For he knew that leprosy yields not to the skill of physicians, but he saw the devils cast out by the Divine authority, and multitudes cured of divers diseases, all which he conceived was the work of the Divine arm. TITUS BOSTRENSIS. Let us learn from the words of the leper not to go about seeking the cure of our bodily infirmities, but to commit the whole to the will of God, Who knows what is best for us, and disposes all things as He will. AMBROSE. He heals in the same manner in which He had been entreated to heal, as it follows, And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, &c. The law forbids to touch the leprous man, but He who is the Lord of the law submits not to the law, but makes the law; He did not touch because without touching He was unable to make him clean, but to shew that he was neither subject to the law, nor feared the contagion as man; for He could not be contaminated Who delivered others from the pollution. On the other hand, He touched also, that the leprosy might be expelled by the touch of the Lord, which was wont to contaminate him that touched. THEOPHYLACT. For His sacred flesh has a healing, and life-giving power, as being indeed the flesh of the Word of God. AMBROSE. In the words which follow, I will, be thou clean, you have the will, you have also the result of His mercy. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA. (Thes. 12. c. 14.) From majesty alone proceeds the royal command, how then is the Only-begotten counted among the servants, who by His mere will can do all things? We read of God the Father, that He hath done all things whatsoever He pleased. (Ps. 115:3; 135:6.) But He who exercises the power of His Father, how can He differ from Him in nature? Besides, whatsoever things are of the same power, are wont to be of the same substance. Again; let us then admire in these things Christ working both divinely and bodily. For it is of God so to will that all things are done accordingly, but of man to stretch forth the hand. From two natures therefore is perfected one Christ, for that the Word was made flesh. GREGORY OF NYSSA. (Orat. 1. in Resur. Christ.) And because the Deity is united with each portion of man, i. e. both soul and body, in each are evident the signs of a heavenly nature. For the body declared the Deity hidden in it, when by touching it afforded a remedy, but the soul, by the mighty power of its will, marked the Divine strength. For as the sense of touch is the property of the body, so the motion of the will of the soul. The soul wills, the body touches.

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

  But another point remains to be considered. We have already said that the words of our Lord quoted in Holy Scripture, carry the same weight as if spoken by His own lips. But there is another way whereby God speaks interiorly to men, viz. the way alluded to in Ps. 84:9: “I will hear what the Lord God will speak in me.” Now this interior voice is to be preferred to any external speech. St. Gregory says (Homil. Pentecostes), “The Creator does not speak to the understanding of a man, unless He speak to that same man by the unction of the Holy Spirit. Before Cain slew his brother he heard a voice saying, “You have sinned; stop.” But as, on account of his sin, he was admonished by a voice alone, and not by the unction of the Spirit, he was indeed able to hear the word of God, but refused to obey it.” If then we are bound to obey immediately the audible voice of our Creator, how much more ought we not, unhesitatingly and unresistingly, to obey the interior whisper, whereby the Holy Spirit changes the heart of man. Hence, in Is 50:5, it is said by the mouth of the Prophet, or rather of Christ Himself: “The Lord God has opened my ear (i.e. by interior inspiration), and I do not resist. I have not gone back.” “Forgetting the things that are behind, and stretching forth myself to those that are before,” as we read in the Epistle to the Philippians (3:13). St. Paul, again, says (Rom 8:14), “Whoever are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” The Gloss of St. Augustine has the following comment: “Such men do not perform anything, but act under the impulse of grace.” But he who resists or hesitates, does not act by the impulse of the Holy Spirit.

• From Martin Luther (2016)

  An early portrait of 1509 shows Spalatin with delec- table curls, dressed in a simple grey gown with a black lining which combines academic reserve with courtly display. A woodcut from 1515 depicts a serious young man in sober garb, meditating on the Cross. But Spalatin was not a courtier by birth. His father was a tanner, and he came from Spalt near Nuremberg. One of the ‘new men’, he had risen through education. He joined the court but knew that, as a - commoner, he was not an aristocrat’s equal; there was also specula- tion that he may have been illegitimate. While he was a trusted servant and important advisor — and on occasion intimate enough to be present when the Elector did his toilette before dinner — he was not invited to join the table afterwards.* Spalatin seems to have had a sure touch for negotiation and manoeuvre, a grasp of the possible and a sense of realism which Luther lacked. Like Luther he was educated in Greek as well as Latin, and he became part of the humanist circles around Conrad Mutian and Nikolaus Marschalk at the University of Erfurt. He did not possess Luther’s abrasive self-confidence, and was a poor speaker. But the two men formed a hugely creative partnership. Spalatin bought books for the university library and supported university reforms that brought in biblical studies and those of the Church Fathers. Together they made a series of brilliant appointments, of whom Melanchthon was the star. Repeatedly Luther would recommend people to Spalatin, asking for small favours, pensions from Friedrich or seeking posts for them. Spalatin worked tirelessly in the service of the Elector, often late into the night; he nevertheless found time to translate Luther’s Latin works into German, and did so with a fine musical sense.? We have just Luther’s side of the friendship, because it is only his letters that have survived — carefully catalogued and reverentially THE DIET OF WORMS 175 34. Lucas Cranach the Elder, Georg Spalatin Honouring the Cross, 1515. annotated, often in Greek, by Spalatin.° As the sheer number of Luther’s letter indicates — over 400 — this was perhaps the central rela- tionship in his life in between 1518 and 1525: he wrote more letters to Spalatin than to anyone else, even though they saw each other regularly.