.
Subsection
God’s Love
Christ’s Human Love
Love to Neighbor
.
.
Order of Contents
Articles 10+
Book 1
Quote 1
Order of 6+
Love to God 4
Love of Self 3
.
Articles
1500’s
Melanchthon, Philip
The Loci Communes of Philip Melanchthon… tr. Charles L. Hill (1521; Boston: Meador Publishing, 1944)
19. ‘On Love & Hope’ 204
28. ‘On Love’ 260
Though Melanchthon (1497–1560) was a Lutheran, this work of his was the first ‘systematic theology’ of the Reformation, and, as it was very influential on reformed systematic theologies following shortly thereafter.
Article 5, Of Love & the Fulfilling of the Law in The Apology of the Augsburg Confession tr: F. Bente & W. H. T. Dau (1531)
No One Can Keep the Law Perfectly
Church Fathers and St. Paul Affirm Justification through Faith
Reply to the Adversaries’ Arguments
Passages the Adversaries Misuse
The Adversaries’ Teaching Based on Reason and the Law
Results of the Adversaries’ Teaching
Salvation Is by God’s Mercy
The Adversaries’ Other Arguments
Conclusion
Vermigli, Peter Martyr – ‘How Faith Excels Charity, & the Contrary’ in The Common Places… (d. 1562; London: Henrie Denham et al., 1583), pt. 3, ch. 3, pp. 75-77
Musculus, Wolfgang – Common Places of the Christian Religion (1560; London, 1563)
‘Of Love’ 463.b
What love is 463.b
How love is given us in charge 464.a
Whom we be commanded to love 464.b
Of the love of God 464.b
Of the love of our neighbor 465.b
Of the love of our brethren 467.a
How far forth we ought to love our brethren 469.a
Of the order of love 470.b
Viret, Pierre – A Christian Instruction… (d. 1561; London: Veale, 1573), A Familiar Exposition of the Principal Points of the Catechism, 19th Dialogue
What Difference there is between true & perfect repentance, faith and charity
Zanchi, Girolamo – Confession of the Christian Religion… (1586; Cambridge, 1599), pp. 136-41 & 326-27
ch. 17, ’Of Faith, Hope & Charity’
. On Aphorism 1
. On Aphorism 2
Finch, Henry – 8. Of Love in The Sacred Doctrine of Divinity gathered out of the Word of God… (Middelburg: 1589), bk. 2
Finch (d. 1625) was an English lawyer and politician.
Rollock, Robert – 33. ‘Charity or Love’ in A Treatise of Effectual Calling (1603) in Select Works of Robert Rollock… (d. 1599; Edinburgh, 1849), vol. 1, pp. 234-38
.
1600’s
Ames, William – ch. 7, ‘Charity or Love’ in The Marrow of Theology tr. John D. Eusden (1623; Baker, 1997), bk. 2, pp. 250-54
Ames (1576-1633) was an English, puritan, congregationalist, minister, philosopher and controversialist. He spent much time in the Netherlands, and is noted for his involvement in the controversy between the reformed and the Arminians. Voet highly commended Ames’s Marrow for learning theology.
Andrewes, Lancelot – 5th Command, ch. 1 in A Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine at Large; or a Learned & Pious Exposition of the 10 Commandments (d. 1626; 1675), Ten Commandments, pp. 310-19
This is excellent.
Leigh, Edward – ch. 21, II. Of the Simple Affections [Love] in A System or Body of Divinity… (London, A.M., 1654), bk. 7, pp. 551-54
Baxter, Richard – ‘Of Love’ in The Government of the Passions according to the Rules of Reason & Religion… (London: J. Knapton, 1700), pp. 66-73
.
.
Book
1500’s
Bucer, Martin – Instruction in Christian Love, 1523 (John Knox Press, 1953) 67 pp. ToC
.
.
Quote
1600’s
Robert Rollock
Select Works of Robert Rollock ed. Gunn (d. 1599; Edinburgh: Wodrow Society, 1849), vol. 1, A Treatise of God’s Effectual Calling, ch. 33, ‘Of Charity or Love’, pp. 236-37
“Of the premises ye may gather some definition of faith, as namely that
‘love is a holy endeavor for the preservation of that which is beloved, whether God or man, with an earnest desire to be united unto it.’
For love is that bond, as the apostle speaks, whereby the members of the body are knit together. And it serves also in some sort and place to unite us unto God and Christ, notwithstanding that the communion of Christ, the head of his body the Church, be principally to be ascribed unto faith.”
.
On the Order of Love
See also ‘On Love of God, Self-Love & Love for those Close to Us, in Relation to Others’.
.
Order of
Quotes 3
Article 1
Book 1
Latin 2
.
Quotes
Order of
Bullinger
Andrewes
Davenant
.
1500’s
Henry Bullinger
Decades 1.10, vol. 1, pp. 185-86
“Whatever man stands in need of our aid, he both is and is to be counted as our neighbour. And yet, all this notwithstanding, there is no reason that there should not be an order, a measure, and a decent regard, in love and well-doing. For Augustine rightly said, in the twenty-seventh chapter of his book de Doctrina Christiana: “No sinner, in that he is a sinner, is to be loved.” And in the twenty-eighth chapter:
“All men are to be loved alike. But since you cannot do good to all men, you must therefore especially do good to those to whom you are more nearly joined by lot as it were — by opportunity either of time, place, or any other thing whatsoever.”
And Paul taught this before Augustine, where he says, “Whoever does not work, let him not eat.” (2 Thes 3:10). And again, “While we have time, let us work good to all men; but specially to those of the household of faith.” (Gal 6.10). And in another place he commands us not to bestow on others, and yet lack ourselves at home; rather he charges everyone to have a godly care of his own house (1 Tim 5:8 ).”
.
1600’s
Lancelot Andrewes
A Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine at Large; or a Learned & Pious Exposition of the 10 Commandments (d. 1626; 1675) 5th Commandment
ch. 1, pp. 314-19
“2. And secondly, as we must do no evil to any, so there is a necessity of doing good to all men, as far as we may; and because it is impossible to have 〈◊〉 motum, a particular affection to love every particular man, to rejoice at his good or to have a care of him, our nature and estate being finite, and not sufficient for it: therefore for our actions we are only enjoined to these towards all:
1. First, the duty of prayer, even for our enemies, this is like to the sunbeams, that radius charitatis, which we send to heaven for all men. And this is imposed upon every man, and to be performed for every man.
2. The second action is, to be done in a case of necessity, and is that which is intimated in the parable in the Gospel, of the man that fell among thieves; even the succour we owe to every man in necessity, which is 〈◊〉, that rather than we should fail in this case to help him, we are adimere 〈◊〉 multa non necessaria, take from our own all that is not ne∣cessary, to relieve his necessity; which is expressed by the wise man, ‘If thine enemy hunger, give him bread; and if he thirst, give him water to drink.’ If we do not, we make a breach of the First Table, according to that of St. John:
〈◊〉 has this world’s good, and see his brother has need, and 〈◊〉 up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwells the love of God in him?’
Now by the world’s good is meant sufficiency, or abundance with superfluity, and his need not without extremity.
The secound Councel of Arelat. sets down, Quae quis salvo statu 〈◊◊〉, pro superfluis haberi debent concurrente fratris necessitate: those things which a man may bestow, saving his estate or condition of life, are to be accounted as things superfluous, if his brother’s necessity be present.
And under this is comprehended also the charitable performing of the works of our vocation for the good of all that are in necessity. As the lawyer is not to deny his counsel to any one that shall ask it: nor the physician his help to any that shall require it in case of necessity. And a further injunction then prayer and parting with our superfluity is commanded by the conjunction copulative in the three first verses of the Gospel: where a man is charged, if his cloak be taken from him, to part with his coat too; and if he be struck on the one cheek, to offer the other: which is nothing, but:
1. The habitual patience of the mind, whereby a man should be ready to part with such things and bear such injuries if the glory of God require it, otherwise he is not bound. And
2. rather to suffer more wrong than to seek revenge or return evil for evil.
2. The second thing proposed is the object of this love, which is our neighbor.
Of which word ‘neighbor’ in our Savior’s time there was a strict acception, it was reduced to a narrow room. For the Pharisees counted none neighbors but their friends, and those of their own country and kindred, and so they expounded the Law, Thou 〈◊〉 thy neighbour, by restraing it to such: but our Savior makes the word to be of a larger extent, and forces the lawyer to confess that it extends to enemies, even to Samaritans, which were such deadly enemies to the Jews that they would not 〈◊〉 Christ, because his face was towards 〈◊〉; for every one from whom we may receive mercy, or to whom too we may shew mercy are neighbors, and so our Savior proves that the Samaritan was a neighbor to him that fell among thieves, because he shewed him mercy, though otherwise he were an enemy to the Jews, and of another nation, for as Saint Augustine says, he is proximus, a neighbour, Qui est proximo 〈◊〉, that is near to another in works of mercy, and therefore it is not cognatio 〈◊◊〉, kindred or cohabitation, but mercy that 〈◊〉 a man to be a neighbor, and seeing every man, even an enemy, may be an object of mercy, therefore every man, even an enemy is a neighbor. And it is not Christ’s exposition only, but the Law says the very same, in the case of a stray ox or ass. If thy brothers ox or ass go astray, etc. which brother in another place is said to be even an enemy, for there is in the same Law, 〈◊〉 23. 4, 5. where it is said, ‘If thy enemy’s ox or ass go astray, etc.’
He that is the object of our love is expressed in Scripture by three words, which are distinguished in the Hebrew, as well as in the Latin: 1. Amicus, a friend or fellow. 2. Proximus, a neighbour. 3. Frater, a brother; which is used by St. John constantly in his first Epistle. In all which are motives and grounds of love. For:
1. In brethren there is identitas naturae, etc. identity of nature, which makes all creatures love one another; one beast delighting in another of the same kind, and little children delighting in their image in the glass, show this.
2. Now as this similitude is a 〈◊〉 of love, so is identitas originis, identity of beginning; therefore it is a natural thing, for brethren born to love one another, because they have the same original; and nothing so unnatural, as one brother not to love another.
2. Between Friends, love is the cause of love, for it will be mutual and reciprocal. 〈◊〉 amoris magnes, love is a loadstone to love. Our Savior knew this well, and therefore in the commandment of love He expresses it is thus, ‘That ye love one another;’ it must be amor mutuus, mutual love.
Another ground of love among friends is societas periculi, et 〈◊〉, when men partake of the same danger or deliverance, as captives under the Turk delivered by the same ransom. This ground of love we have, who being all in danger of hell, and become captives of Satan, are delivered by the same ransom, by Christ. This makes friendship, and causes love in men that never saw one another before.
3. Now for proximus, it is defined ab use, of the use and benefit that one has by another. God has not given to any man such gifts, but that he needs the gifts of his brother. God has not given all his gifts to any one, and therefore there is none but has need of another: and therefore 〈◊〉 et utilitas, use and utility, are the grounds of propinquity, and make men become proximi, neighbors.
4. Lastly, there is 〈◊〉 instituti; both amongst 〈◊〉, friends and neighbors, all do tendere ad idem, tend to one and the same end; that is, to be partakers of the blessedness, which the angels of God enjoy: for this is institutum 〈◊〉, et proximi 〈◊〉, et amici, et nostrum omnium, the end and scope of my brother, neighbor, friend, and myself, and of all of us.
These then are the reasons of God’s using those words, and the reasons also of our love.
…
2. We must know, that in proximitate, neighborhood, there are degrees of nearness, whereby one is nearer than another. In which respect that affection which causes us to remember some before others in our prayers is not from any corruption of our nature, because omission of duty to one is a greater sin than to another; for the duty to a father is greater than to a stranger.
But as in natural things there is major 〈◊〉, a stronger motion, where there is major 〈◊〉, a stronger inclination; so where there is a greater duty owing, there God will have a greater affection. Because the earth is to come 〈◊〉 to the center than the water, therefore it has majorem gravitatem, a greater degree of 〈◊〉, to draw it thither; and so where the greater actions or duties are required, there greater affections or a greater measure of love, which is a weight pressing to the 〈◊〉, is necessary: not only charitas, but also ordo charitatis cadit sub 〈◊〉, as the 〈◊〉 determine. As therefore the affection of love is required, so our love must be ordered, as the Schools speak. The demonstration stands thus:
If wheresoever there is principium, a beginning; there whatsoever is 〈◊〉 principio, 〈◊〉 to it, is 〈◊〉 first, and so consequently there is an order, and so every thing, as it is 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 off, must first or latter be intended. Now there are two causes or principles of love; God and ourselves, and therefore the nearer any are to these principles (as some men are nearer to ourselves, as fathers, mothers, etc. so are nearer to God by grace) the more they are to be loved. Let us see then this order in our charity, that it may be ordinata charitas, charity well ordered. To which purpose it must stand thus:
1. God. 2. Our own souls. 3. Our brother’s soul. 4. Our bodies. 5 The body of our neighbor or brother.
1. God is to be loved especially, and in the first place, because He is that chiefest good, by the communication whereof we are all made good. So says St. Augustine, 〈◊〉 vera et summa vita, in quo, a quo, et per quem, bona sunt omnia, 〈◊〉 bona sunt, ‘God is the true and chief life; in, from and by whom are all good things. And as another, Cum 〈◊〉 Deum 〈◊〉 in ipso 〈◊〉, by loving God we find all things: God is the universal nature, to whom all things give place. He must have the first place in our love; as in policy the public good is preferred before all private respects: and therefore a good citizen will be content to lose his own goods, thereby to redeem peace to the public.
We see in nature that heavy things will move upwards, contrary to their own particular nature, propter salutem universi, for the good of the universe, as that ne detur 〈◊〉: so in religion, God and our love to Him, 〈◊〉 dilectionis in 〈◊〉, does overcome and drown all other loves to ourselves, or any other particular object; as we see it did in St. Paul, who out of his love to God (that he might be glorified in the salvation of the Jews) 〈◊〉 to be separated from Christ, if it had been possible [Rom. 9:4], and not incompatible with his love to God which was as a motion against a particular nature, for the good of the general or universe.
2. The next is ourselves, and ourselves before our brethren. The reason is because in the one there is an unity, in the other, at the most is but a union: and major 〈◊〉 habenda est unitatis, quam 〈◊〉, there is a greater regard to be had of the 〈◊〉, than of the latter. And again, seeing it is not lawful for any to commit a sin to prevent his brother 〈◊〉 sinning, nay not to save the whole world, it shows plainly, we are to prefer the love of ourselves before our brother, and in ourselves our own souls before our brother’s soul.
Now in the case between the health or good of our own body and of our brother’s soul, it thus stands: There can come no participation of the glory of God to our bodies, nisi per redundantiam, as it were by an overflowing, when the soul being full communicates it to the body. But the soul of our brother is capable of divine glory, and the universal good, immediately by itself, and therefore ought to be preferred before the body of any which participates only per redundantiam, by the overflowing of the soul, and so at the second hand as it were; besides one soul is worth all bodily creatures in the world: a man therefore may endanger his body, for the saving his brother’s soul.
3. Then in the next place we are to seek the good of our neighbor’s body: and of neighbors:
1. 〈◊〉 est omnibus, we are generally to love, and succour all that need, any whomsoever, if they be in extrema necessitate, in extreme necessity.
2. And in the next place, of those that be in need, maxime 〈◊〉, especially we are to do good to them that are of the household of faith, as the apostle directs, that are of the same religion with us, we are to relieve such before others, if we cannot relieve both, believers before infidels.
3. And thirdly, among the faithful, to them that are of our own country, before the children of strangers.
4. Fourthly among those of our own country, 〈◊〉, to our own, to those that have some relation to us, for he that regards not his own, says the apostle, is worse than an 〈◊〉.
5. Fiftly, of our own, to them that are of our own house or kindred.
6. Sixthly, in the house, to the wife on 〈◊〉, rather than to father, mother or children; for a man must leave father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and that the husband ought to be preferred before children appears by 〈◊〉speech to 〈◊〉, ‘Am not I better to thee than many sons? And therefore the children are not to lay up for the 〈◊〉, but the fathers for the children, as the apostle says, yet everyone should have respect both upwards and downwards.
Now for strangers, or those that are not nostri, ours, either they be rich or poor, of which the poor are rather to be regarded than the rich; and for the rich, they are either such as we have received benefits from, or to whom we have done good; and because 〈◊〉 est 〈◊〉 et maximum 〈◊◊〉, the work is the chief 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 of anything, and bestowing of good is, 〈◊◊〉, 〈◊◊〉 which makes 〈◊〉 virtue 〈◊◊〉 visible; and in that respect it is, that a man is apt to love his own work or his own creature, as we say; yet we ought to prefer him of whom we have received benefits before him on whom we have bestowed any, because a benefactor is more like a 〈◊〉 to us than the other like a son. T〈◊〉 2. 2. q. 26. a. 12, Ex. Arist. 9. Eth. But if (as Saint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it) there are two persons, who in all respects are equal, and we have something that would help either of them, and that it cannot be divided. What is then to be done? There being nothing in the one why I should pleasure him more than the other, quid 〈◊〉 sorte eligerim, nothing, but to choose one by lot. The same may be the case of every man that is to do good to another, who in 〈◊〉 all are of finite nature, and therefore are not able to do good to all or to satisfy all, therefore when we are joined in the like relation to us, or the degree of 〈◊〉 or propinquity, if we must help both, there remains nothing but 〈◊〉, to 〈◊〉 it by 〈◊〉.
Further we are to know that in love there is a double respect: 1. Of the object or party loved. 2. of the subject, or party that loves.
1. 〈◊〉 dilecti, in 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 loved, we are to respect 〈◊◊〉, and to love him more in whom the more excellent gifts of grace appear, so as to take more complacency in him, and to wish him the more excellent good, as the greater degree of glory; because the more excellent anything is, the nearer it comes to God, and if he be better, we ought to wish him better. Thus spiritual conjunction or nearness is to be preferred, 〈◊〉 objecti, in respect of the object.
2. Ratione 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 loving, and here natural and 〈◊〉 propinquity or conjunction may be preferred before spiritual, as founded in nature, and therefore more firm and immutable: and hence it is that in temporal things, a man may prefer one that is nearer by nature, before one that is only conjoined with us by grace. Thus if a man have money or estate to give; he is not bound to bestow it upon the best man in the world, but may prefer one that’s nearer in nature, though not so excellent in grace. And thus far de ordine 〈◊〉, of the order of our love.
The third general proposed is the 〈◊〉 of this love, 〈◊◊〉. ‘As thyself’.
This is sicut te, ‘as thyself’; not 〈◊〉 te, as 〈◊〉 as thyself, it signifies a respect, but not a quantity. The Hebrew 〈 Hebrew 〉 signifies not 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉, as Job 12:3, for as we said before, every man ought to have a greater regard to his own soul than to his brothers.
Now this 〈◊〉 or manner of love must appear in four things: 1. the end. 2. the means. 3. the manner. 4. the order.
1. The first in 〈◊〉 te 〈◊〉, is in respect of the end, for which thou lovest thyself, or for the same cause, And thou lovest thyself, because thou lovest God, and so consequently, all 〈◊◊〉 Dei, that are Gods; because thou thyself art aliquid Dei, ‘something of God’; therefore thou lovest thyself, and so consequently thou must love thy neighbour propter 〈◊〉 for God; and 〈◊〉 for this cause thou lovest thy brother, thou 〈◊〉 him as thyself, in respect of the end. So also and in this 〈◊〉 thou must love thy brother.
2. The second is the 〈◊〉, the applying this love to that end. And that is, that inasmuch as I love myself, I wish myself good, and that not in my 〈◊〉 but best part, which is my reasonable soul: and therefore I wish more especially the chiefest good of it, 〈◊〉 bonum 〈◊◊〉, which is, eternal blessedness and this is it which I must look to in my brother. If I love him as myself, I must love him ad 〈◊◊〉 partis, for the good of his better part, and that is the good of the inward man (of which the apostle speaks), whereas the most love only the outward man; now the chiefest good of the inward man consists in 〈◊〉 Dei in the sight and fruition of God. But because none can come to this except the impediments be removed, which is sin; Saint Augustine 〈◊〉, 〈◊◊〉 diligit proximum hoc cum 〈◊〉 debet 〈◊〉, 〈◊◊〉 ipse 〈◊〉 toto corde 〈◊◊〉, 〈◊〉 that truly 〈◊〉 his 〈◊〉, must work upon him so, 〈◊〉 he also love God with all his heart. Take care to remove his sins, and as for a man’s self, 〈◊〉 his will do 〈◊◊◊〉, 〈◊〉 him to some sin, non 〈◊◊〉, be must 〈◊◊〉, because it would hinder 〈◊◊〉 the 〈◊〉 good, so ought he to love his neghbour, as not to consent to the evil will of his neighbor in any bad action, because that would hinder his chief good.
The Scripture speaks of things not always as they are, but as they ought to be, and so requiring us to love others as ourselves, it is not meant of ourself love, 〈◊〉 it is corrupt, but as we ought to love ourselves specimen naturae capiendum ex optima natura, a pattern in nature must be taken from nature pure and 〈◊〉 in its integrity; so that a man ought not to love his neighbor as he does himself, but as he should love himself. For saint Augustine says, when I love myself, either I love myself because I am or should be blessed: the very same rule we should observe in our brother: I must love him, aut quia est 〈◊〉 ut sit, either because he is, or because he should be good. Which I cannot do unless I win him ab impedimentis, from the impediments, and set him in via in 〈◊〉 right way: for as saint Augustine says, Non 〈◊〉 proximum tanquam seipsum si non ad id 〈◊〉 ad quod ipse tendis, adducis. Thou lovest not thy neighbor as thyself, if thou 〈◊〉 him not to that good, to which thou thyself tends. And he says in another place, 〈◊〉 est regula 〈◊〉, it is the only rule of love, ut 〈◊〉 sibi 〈◊〉 bona pervenire, et illi velit, that he would have the same good come to his neighbor, that he wishes to himself.
3. The third is the manner. In loving anything that is good there are two motives: First, either it is for the sole and alone good of him that loves it, or Secondly, for the good of the thing itself, that is loved he that loves anything, not for itself, but for himself, does not love it as himself, this is not diligere 〈◊〉 seipsum, but propter seipsum; this is not, ut faciat bonum, sed ut potiatur quis bono, not to seek his good whom we love, but to make use of what good is in him for ourselves, as men love their instruments, merely for the use they have of them and not otherwise; thus a man loves his shooing horn, to make use of it, to serve his turn in the morning, and casts it away all the day after: but our love to our neighbor should be gratuitus, without hope of recompence, and that he that we love may have the sole good by it. Otherwise if we love him not as ourselves, for no man loves himself, ut se potiatur, that he may make use of himself, as he loves meat, drink, etc. and therefore must he love his neighbor, not to make use of him for his own ends, but propter seipsum, for himself, seeking and desiring his good.
4. The last is the order. It is sicut teipsum, not sicut 〈◊〉, as ourselves, not as we love God; we must beware of loving Him so, for we must love ourselves infra Deum, in a pitch below God; and by consequence we must love our neighbour infra Deum, after God. Therefore we must not 〈◊〉 the will of any man, be he of never so great excellency, before the will of God. God’s will must not give place to ours. God is not so unwise as to bring in the Second Table to overthrow the first, but his scope in it was, that it should be a table to direct and help us in performing the duties of the first.
1. So that if our love to our neighbor, in the first place be for God alone, then it is Sancta dilectio.
2. If it be to bring him to that end we aim at our 〈◊〉, then it is amor justus, a just love.
3. If it be merely for our neighbors, without respect to ourselves then it is verus amor, true love.
4. and lastly if we prefer the love of God in the first place then it is ordinata dilectio, well ordered love.
Now God in both these tables proceeds further than earthly princes; he takes order for the regulating of the heart and soul even for restraint of concupisence that there be no entertainment of sin within us and that we conceive no delight in it. And this is the internal obedience of the Second Table, to entertain no concupiscence prejudicial to our neighbour, and it is the sum or substance of the Tenth Commandment, which God has placed last, not first that those two, the First Commandment and the Last, the one concerning the inward worship of God, the other the inward love and duty to our neighbor, might be the bounds of his law.”
.
ch. 2, p. 321
“This we showed was the order of love in respect of nearness of conjunction with us. But now in respect of excellency and the honor which is therefore due to any, it is otherwise: for in some cases the person of greater excellency must be preferred before such as be of near relation to us.
St. Paul honored Nero, an infidel, appealing to him. Thus a stranger may be honored rather than one of our own country, as Daniel was honored by Darius above all the princes of Babylon: and Joseph, though a stranger, by Pharaoh above all the rulers of Egypt. Thus one that is not allied may be honored before one of our own kindred, as Moses appointed Aaron and not any of his own sons to succeed him in the government of Israel.
Now such persons as are to be honored in respect of their excellent gifts and of their nearness to God, which we ought to esteem and honor above all nearness to ourselves by any relations to us, and that not only for itself, but also our honor and respect being the reward which God has appointed to such gifts; although in respect of ourselves also we are to regard them, they being of great use and profit to us by their gifts. The heathen man said that every one made more account of 〈Greek〉, than of 〈Greek〉, ‘of his own things’, than ‘of God’s’, and the apostle complains of such as sought 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ‘their own things, and not the things of Christ’.
But if we look at the 〈◊〉 of any, we must not chiefly look at ourselves, but to honor God in his gifts, for we must consider them in a double respect:
1. As they are useful and beneficial to us, and so the duty is diliges, thou shalt love them.
2. As they are near to God, by that excellency which he has given them: and so we must do more than love them, we must honor them.
If it be here demanded: Why did not God make all men excellent alike and fit to be superiors?
Answer: God made men of finite natures and therefore of such condition that one should need the help of another: for which end the woman also was made to be an helper to the man.
Besides, seeing men grow in wisdom and abilities for several 〈◊〉 according to their finite capacities, industry and education, necessarily it follows that as the stars differ each from other in glory, so one man does excel another. In this regard the elder brother, having as dignity of primogeniture, so more maturity of years and reason was appointed by God to rule over the rest of the family. Yet God the King of kings and Lord of lords, the fountain and original of all rule, made Moses the younger brother ruler and as a God to Aaron, the elder brother, and preferred David before his elder brethren, and Solomon before Adonijah and Absalom when He first framed and composed a national government in his own people.
But having settled the platform of that rule He intended by the practice of David and Solomon in a monarchical course (the best of all kinds of governments and approved by God, because He rested in it), He left the managing of that kingdom and rule to the true and lawful heirs of David in all after-times, because they by education under their parents, and aptness of children to walk in the steps of their fathers and to fit their spirits and carriage to what they are born to, would probably best perform the royal and weighty charge of ruling as kings, and make election of the most able, active and faithful instruments to assist them in 〈◊〉 their great affairs.”
.
John Davenant
An Exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians, 2:287–88 on Col. 4:12, “Epaphras, who is one of you…”
“That is, your fellow-citizen, born and educated among you, and finally given and devoted to your advantage. This especially conduces conciliate love for him. For all love (as the Schools express it) is founded in some communication or participation of the same thing: therefore, they who are participants of the same country and city, are united together as by a certain closer bond of love. For as their native soil is used to be dear to all, so it renders all things which spring from it even more dear to the wise and sober. Corollaries:
(1) They are deservedly to be blamed as vain and void of natural affection, who despise their own kindred and all their home concerns, being in the mean time addicted beyond what is just and good, to things and persons foreign to the house.
(2) They who by a participation of country and city, or any like cause, are united with us, all other things corresponding, ought to be more dear than strangers. Hence says the apostle, 1 Tim. 5:8, ‘If any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.’
.
Articles
1200’s
Aquinas, Thomas
Commentary on Lombard’s Sentences, bk. 3
27. Charity
28. Command to love one’s neighbor
29. Order of charity
30. Order of charity as regards merit
31. Duration of charity
32. God’s charity for us
.
Summa, pt. 2 of 2
25. Object of charity
1. Whether we should love God alone, out of charity, or should we love our neighbor also?
2. Whether charity should be loved out of charity?
3. Whether irrational creatures ought to be loved out of charity?
4. Whether one may love oneself out of charity?
5. Whether one’s own body?
6. Whether sinners should be loved out of charity?
7. Whether sinners love themselves?
8. Whether we should love our enemies out of charity?
9. Whether we are bound to show them tokens of friendship?
10. Whether we ought to love the angels out of charity?
11. Whether we ought to love the demons?
12. How to enumerate the things we are bound to love out of charity.
26. Order of charity
1. Whether there is an order in charity?
2. Whether man ought to love God more than his neighbor?
3. Whether more than himself?
4. Whether he ought to love himself more than his neighbor?
5. Whether man ought to love his neighbor more than his own body?
6. Whether he ought to love one neighbor more than another?
7. Whether he ought to love more, a neighbor who is better, or one who is more closely united to him?
8. Whether he ought to love more, one who is akin to him by blood, or one who is united to him by other ties?
9. Whether, out of charity, a man ought to love his son more than his father?
10. Whether he ought to love his mother more than his father?
11. Whether he ought to love his wife more than his father or mother?
12. Whether we ought to love those who are kind to us more than those whom we are kind to?
13. Whether the order of charity endures in heaven?
27. Principal act of charity, which is to love
1. Which is the more proper to charity, to love or to be loved?
2. Whether to love considered as an act of charity is the same as goodwill?
3. Whether God should be loved for His own sake?
4. Whether God can be loved immediately in this life?
5. Whether God can be loved wholly?
6. Whether the love of God is according to measure?
7. Which is the better, to love one’s friend, or one’s enemy?
8. Which is the better, to love God, or one’s neighbor?
.
1500’s
Musculus, Wolfgang – Common Places of the Christian Religion (1560; London, 1563)
How far forth we ought to love our brethren 469.a
Of the order of love 470.b
.
Book
2000’s
Kocman, Alex – Ordered to Love: Recovering the Order of Affections from the Home to the Ends of the Earth (Founders Press, 2026) 137 pp.
Blurb: “This book examines:
– How modernity has distorted the meaning and practice of Christian love.
– The biblical order of affections taught in Scripture and upheld in the Christian tradition.
– The relationship between love of home, love of nation, and love for the nations.
– The dangers of both disembodied globalism and extreme forms of nationalism.
– How rightly ordered love strengthens families, churches, and the gospel mission.”
.
Latin
1100’s
Lombard, Peter – Libri IV Sententiarum, 2nd ed. (c. 1150; Florence: College of St. Bonaventura, 1916), vol. 2, bk. 3, Christ & Virtues Detailed ToC
27. Charity
1. Of the love (charity) of God and neighbor which is in Christ and in us
2. What is charity
3. Whether God and neighbor are loved (diligitur) with the same charity
4. Why two commandments of charity are spoken of
5. Of the way one ought to love (diligendi)
6. Of the fulfillment of that command: “Love (Diliges) God from your whole heart”
7. That the one commandment is in the other
8. Which things are to be loved with charity
28. Command to Love One’s Neighbor
1. Whether we are commanded to love our whole neighbor and our whole selves
2-4. That in the love of neighbor is included the love of angels
29. Order of Charity
1. Of the order of loving (diligendi), what is first, what after
2. Whether all men are to be equally loved (diligendi)
3. Of the grades of charity
30. Order of Charity as regards Merit
1. If it is better to love enemies than friends
31. Duration of Charity
1. Whether charity holds at any time with falling away
2. Why faith, hope and wisdom are said to be emptied, and not charity, when it is itself out of a part (like faith, hope and wisdom)
3. Whether Christ served the order of love (to, as a creature, love all men as Himself) rather than us (the elect) [The answer splices out whether Christ had a saving will for all or only for the elect, and answers the latter]
32. God’s Charity for Us
1. Of the charity of God
2-3. In what way God is said to love more or less this or that
4. If any is loved more or less by God at one time more than another
5. If God from eternity love has loved reprobates
.
1300’s
Duns Scotus, John – The Ordinatio: Oxford Commentary on the Four Books of the Master of the Sentences, bk. 3 in All the Works, new ed. (Paris, 1891)
Bk. 3
27. Whether some theological virtue may incline to love God above all 354
28. Whether by the same habit may be love to one’s neighbor by which God is loved 377
29. Whether one may be bound to love oneself to the highest degree after God 389
30. Whether it may be necessary from charity to love an enemy 395
31. Whether charity may abide in heaven (patria) that it be not extinguished 406
32. Whether God may love with charity all equally 426-38
.
1500’s
Luther, Martin – bk. 3, Distinction 30 in Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard in D. Martin Luthers Werke (1510-1511; Weimar: Hermann Bohlau, 1893), vol. 9, p. 93 Prefatory material is in German; the work is in Latin.
Luther (1483-1546), a German, composed this commentary in becoming a doctor, as was the standard requirement at the time.
Luther does not have material in this work on distinctions 27-29 & 31-32.
.
On Love to God
See also, ‘On Love of God, Self & Neighbor’.
.
Articles
1500’s
Bullinger, Henry – 10th Sermon, ‘Of the Love of God & our Neighbor’ in The Decades ed. Thomas Harding (1549; Cambridge: Parker Society, 1849), vol. 1, 1st Decade, pp. 180-92
Musculus, Wolfgang – Common Places of the Christian Religion (1560; London, 1563), ‘Of Love’
Of the love of God 464.b
.
Latin
1600’s
Voet, Gisbert – Select Theological Disputations (Utrecht, 1659 / 1667)
vol. 3, 8. ‘On the Love of God’, pp. 79-91
vol. 4, ‘On the love of God’ in 50. ‘A Syllabus of Questions on the Decalogue’, ‘On the 1st Commandment’, p. 776
.
On Love of Oneself
See also, ‘On Love of God, Self-Love & Love for those Close to Us, in Relation to Others’.
.
Article
Leigh, Edward – pp. 379-80 of ch. 23. ‘…Self-Love, Self-Seeking…’ in A System or Body of Divinity… (London, A.M., 1654), bk. 4
.
Quote
1600’s
Samuel Rutherford
Lex Rex... (1644; Edinburgh: Ogle, 1843), p. 3
“…from natural affections, there results an act of self-love for self-preservation. So David shall condemn another rich man who has many lambs and robs his poor brother of his one lamb and yet not condemn himself, though he be most deep in that fault, 1 Sam. 12:5-6;”
.
Historical Theology
On the Post-Reformation
Article
McGinnis, Andrew – ‘The Moral Status of Self-Love in Early Reformed Ethics’ in Journal of Early Modern Christianity Ref (2023)
“Reformed moral philosophers in the period of early orthodoxy (ca. 1550–ca. 1650) continue a medieval tradition of engaging moral questions in conversation with Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, and they often address the moral status of self-love in connection with the virtue of friendship. There is broad agreement among these authors that self-love is not only not necessarily sinful, but that some kinds of self-love are morally good and that self-love is the source and rule for love of one’s neighbor. Lambert Daneau’s Ethices Christianae, however, stands in a more complex relationship to this consensus.”
.
Latin Article
Voet, Gisbert – Select Theological Disputations (Utrecht, 1667), vol. 4, 50. ‘On the Ten Commandments’
‘Of the love of oneself’ 788
‘On self-love and gladness over another’s misfortune’ 824
.
.
.
Related Pages