In yet a third way, mutual indwelling in the love of friendship can be understood in regard to reciprocal love:  inasmuch as friends return love for love, and both desire and do good things for one another.

Reply Obj. 1:  The beloved is contained in the lover, by being impressed on his heart and thus becoming the object of his complacency.  On the other hand, the lover is contained in the beloved, inasmuch as the lover penetrates, so to speak, into the beloved.  For nothing hinders a thing from being both container and contents in different ways:  just as a genus is contained in its species, and vice versa.

Reply Obj. 2:  The apprehension of the reason precedes the movement of love.  Consequently, just as the reason divides, so does the movement of love penetrate into the beloved, as was explained above.

Reply Obj. 3:  This argument is true of the third kind of mutual indwelling, which is not to be found in every kind of love. ________________________

THIRD ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 28, Art. 3]

Whether Ecstasy Is an Effect of Love?

Objection 1:  It would seem that ecstasy is not an effect of love.  For ecstasy seems to imply loss of reason.  But love does not always result in loss of reason:  for lovers are masters of themselves at times.  Therefore love does not cause ecstasy.

Obj. 2:  Further, the lover desires the beloved to be united to him.  Therefore he draws the beloved to himself, rather than betakes himself into the beloved, going forth out from himself as it were.

Obj. 3:  Further, love unites the beloved to the lover, as stated above (A. 1).  If, therefore, the lover goes out from himself, in order to betake himself into the beloved, it follows that the lover always loves the beloved more than himself:  which is evidently false.  Therefore ecstasy is not an effect of love.

On the contrary, Dionysius says (Div.  Nom. iv) that “the Divine love produces ecstasy,” and that “God Himself suffered ecstasy through love.”  Since therefore according to the same author (Div.  Nom. iv), every love is a participated likeness of the Divine Love, it seems that every love causes ecstasy.

I answer that, To suffer ecstasy means to be placed outside oneself.  This happens as to the apprehensive power and as to the appetitive power.  As to the apprehensive power, a man is said to be placed outside himself, when he is placed outside the knowledge proper to him.  This may be due to his being raised to a higher knowledge; thus, a man is said to suffer ecstasy, inasmuch as he is placed outside the connatural apprehension of his sense and reason, when he is raised up so as to comprehend things that surpass sense and reason:  or it may be due to his being cast down into a state of debasement; thus a man may be said to suffer ecstasy, when he is overcome by violent passion or madness.  As to the appetitive power, a man is said to suffer ecstasy, when that power is borne towards something else, so that it goes forth out from itself, as it were.