The first of these ecstasies is caused by love dispositively in so far, namely, as love makes the lover dwell on the beloved, as stated above (A. 2), and to dwell intently on one thing draws the mind from other things.  The second ecstasy is caused by love directly; by love of friendship, simply; by love of concupiscence not simply but in a restricted sense.  Because in love of concupiscence, the lover is carried out of himself, in a certain sense; in so far, namely, as not being satisfied with enjoying the good that he has, he seeks to enjoy something outside himself.  But since he seeks to have this extrinsic good for himself, he does not go out from himself simply, and this movement remains finally within him.  On the other hand, in the love of friendship, a man’s affection goes out from itself simply; because he wishes and does good to his friend, by caring and providing for him, for his sake.

Reply Obj. 1:  This argument is true of the first kind of ecstasy.

Reply Obj. 2:  This argument applies to love of concupiscence, which, as stated above, does not cause ecstasy simply.

Reply Obj. 3:  He who loves, goes out from himself, in so far as he wills the good of his friend and works for it.  Yet he does not will the good of his friend more than his own good:  and so it does not follow that he loves another more than himself. ________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 28, Art. 4]

Whether Zeal Is an Effect of Love?

Objection 1:  It would seem that zeal is not an effect of love.  For zeal is a beginning of contention; wherefore it is written (1 Cor. 3:3):  “Whereas there is among you zeal [Douay:  ‘envying’] and contention,” etc.  But contention is incompatible with love.  Therefore zeal is not an effect of love.

Obj. 2:  Further, the object of love is the good, which communicates itself to others.  But zeal is opposed to communication; since it seems an effect of zeal, that a man refuses to share the object of his love with another:  thus husbands are said to be jealous of (zelare) their wives, because they will not share them with others.  Therefore zeal is not an effect of love.

Obj. 3:  Further, there is no zeal without hatred, as neither is there without love:  for it is written (Ps. 72:3):  “I had a zeal on occasion of the wicked.”  Therefore it should not be set down as an effect of love any more than of hatred.

On the contrary, Dionysius says (Div.  Nom. iv):  “God is said to be a zealot, on account of his great love for all things.”

I answer that, Zeal, whatever way we take it, arises from the intensity of love.  For it is evident that the more intensely a power tends to anything, the more vigorously it withstands opposition or resistance.  Since therefore love is “a movement towards the object loved,” as Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 35), an intense love seeks to remove everything that opposes it.