Section 821
II. Perhaps you will say, it is not merely the notion of God’s loving his elect in a state of nature
But his loving them so as to delight in them, while in that state, that you condemn as a fancy, and the defenders of it, as amusing themselves with a fancy; since you join love and delight together, when you express yourself so freely on this head. There is a distinction which you may imagine will help you, which is that of a love of pity and benevolence, and of complacency and delight; with the first of these, say some, God loved his elect before conversion, and while in a state of nature, but not with the latter. It is an idle and ill grounded distinction of some ignorant, trifling, popish schoolmen, which some of our grave divines have been fond of, and have used, when they have thought it would serve their purpose; though it is subversive of the very nature and perfections of God, and represents him as altogether such an one as ourselves, subject to change; that his love, like ours, alters, and by degrees increases, and, from a love of pity and benevolence, passes into a love of complacency and delight; it supposes that God first views his elect in a miserable state and condition, with whose misery he is touched, and is filled with bowels of compassion and pity towards them, which occasion some velleities (a mere wish not accompanied by actions) or wishes in his mind for their good; and these rise up at length into resolutions and purposes to do them good; which when he has, at least in some measure, executed, his affections glow, his love grows more ardent, and issues in complacency and delight. If this is not to make God changeable, and bring him down into the rank of mutable creatures, I know not what is. I could tell the friends of this distinction, though it may be no news to them, and perhaps they may find their account in it, that these same popish schoolmen have distinguished the love of God into amor ordinativus, a love in ordination, purpose and design, and into amor collativus, a love in gift, which is actually bestowed. This may suit well enough with the divinity of some men, who seem to be ready to give into such schemes as these; that God’s love to his elect, before conversion, is only a purpose to love them when they are converted; that eternal election, is only a decree to elect persons in time; that the everlasting covenant is made with persons when they believe, of which faith, repentance and sincere obedience, are the conditions; and that there is no reconciliation of God’s elect to him before faith; that the sufferings and death of Christ only make God reconcilable, but not reconciled; with such-like things as these, which I am almost tempted to call low and mean stuff. It is high time that these distinctions about the love of God, with that of an antecedent and consequent one, were laid aside, which so greatly obscure the glory of God’s unchangeable love and grace. It must be an odd sort of love among men, that is separate from delight in the object loved. The philosopher tells me, that benevolence is properly neither friendship nor love; and that as benevolence is the beginning of friendship, so delight and pleasure, at the sight of the object, is the beginning of love; and that no man can be said to love, who is not first delighted with the form or idea of the object. Indeed, I cannot see that that can be love, which is without any delight in the object said to be loved: if a man should say to his wife, I love you well, I wish you well and am willing to do you all the good offices I am able:but, at the same time, I can take no delight in your person, nor pleasure in your company; would not this be esteemed a contradiction to his expressions of love to her? Song of Solomon if a father should say to his child, I wish you well, I pity you in what yon do amiss, and I design to do something for you, which may be for your good, but I can take no delight and pleasure in you as a child of mine; what kind of love would this be thought to be? The same may be observed in many other such-like instances.
God’s love to his Son, as a Mediator, is an everlasting love; Thou lovedst me, says Christ (John 17:24), before the foundation of the world. This love was a love of complacency and delight; for Christ as Mediator, was from everlasting, then by him, that is, the Father (Proverbs 8:30), as one brought up with him, and was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him. Now God loves his elect with the same love he loves his Son as Mediator. Hence Christ prays for the open and manifest union between him and his people; That says he (John 17:23), the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. If God therefore has loved his Son, as Mediator, from everlasting, with a love of complacency and delight, and he has loved his elect from everlasting with the same love he has loved him, then he must have loved his elect from everlasting with a love of complacency and delight: and, indeed how can it otherwise be, since the elect were always in Christ their Head, in whom they were chosen before the foundation of the world? And they could not be considered in him but as righteous persons, through his righteousness, with which God is always well pleased, because by it the law is magnified, and made honorable; and so Christ is often said to be God’s beloved Son, in whom not with whom, he is well pleased (Matthew 3:17; 2 Peter 1:17); which designs not his person only singly, but all the elect, as considered in him, who together with Christ, are the objects of God’s eternal delight and pleasure.
It is certain that Jesus Christ has, from everlasting, loved the elect with a love of complacency and delight; for from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was, when there were no depths nor fountains, before the mountains and hills were brought into being, while as yet God had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world, Christ’s delights were with the sons of men” (Proverbs 8:31). The word in the Hebrew rendered delights, is expressive of the most intimate, sweet, ravishing delight and pleasure; and it being not only in the plural number, but also having its radical letters, especially its two first radical letters, doubled, which, in the Hebrew language, increases the signification of the word; it sets forth, that exceeding great delight and pleasure which Christ had in his people from everlasting; nay, he not only took delight in the persons of the elect, as they were presented to him in the glass of his Father’s purposes and decrees, but took pleasure also in the fore-views of the very spots of ground where he knew his people would dwell: and hence he says, that he was rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth (Proverbs 8:31). Now why God the Father should not, from everlasting, love the elect with the same love his son did, I know not.
Nothing is more evident than that God’s choosing his people in Christ before the foundation of the world, is an act of love; and I will venture to say, it is an act of love, founded upon, and springing from his delight in them; even as God’s loving and choosing of Israel (which was an emblem and representation of his special love to, and choice of the true and spiritual Israel of God) is owing to that delight he had in them; for it is said, The Lord had a delight in thy fathers, to love them; and he chose their seed after them, even you above all the people, as at this day (Deuteronomy 10:15). And, indeed, all the favors and blessings which God bestows on his people in time, arise from his delight in them. His bringing them out of darkness into light, out of a state of nature into a state of grace, out of distresses and difficulties of every kind, springs from his delight in them He brought me forth also into a large place, says David (Psalm 18:19); he delivered me, because he delighted in me. In a word, the whole salvation of the elect is owing to God’s love of delight, with which he loves them. The Lord taketh pleasure in his people; and, as a fruit and effect of that he will beautify the meek with salvation: He has promised to rejoice over them, to do them good; and it is said, he will save, he will rejoice over thee with joy; and he will rest in his love, he will rejoice over thee with singing (Psalm 149:4).
Some, perhaps, will say, that the elect, while in a state of nature, are destitute of faith, which is very true; and since without faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6), he can take no delight in them, while in that state. The Remonstrants have urged this text in favor of election, ex fide præ'dipusvisa; and their argument upon it is this: “That if it is impossible to please God without faith, it is impossible that any should be “chosen by God unto salvation, without faith: seeing to be chosen unto salvation, is the highest instance of God’s love and good-will to man that he can shew him:” But “they have been told, by the Anti-Remonstrants, that though election is an act of God’s great love and good pleasure, yet it may be without faith, since there is a sense in which persons may be said to please God before faith; for God is said even to manifest his love to his enemies, (Romans 5:8, 10). If then he loved them when enemies, they must needs please him before they believed;” and that “although whatsoever is done without faith may be displeasing to God, yet God may be said to love some persons, whose actions displease him; so he loved the person of Paul before he was converted to the faith of Christ; yea, that there is a certain complacency in the person, if it be proper so to say, before his works and faith please God.” And it is easy to observe, that the apostle is speaking, not of the complacency which God has in the persons of his people, but of that which he has in their works and actions. Now no works without faith can please God, such as praying, reading, hearing, and the like because whatsoever is not of faith, is sin. It is in this sense, that they that are in the flesh, that is, who are unregenerate, are in a state of nature, cannot please God (Romans 8:8); for it may be as well expected to gather grapes of thorns, and figs of thistles, as that good works well-pleasing to God should be done by an evil man: but though man can do nothing without faith, that can please God, yet this does not hinder, but that the persons of God’s el6ct, as considered in Christ, may be well pleasing to God before faith, and without it.
It may be further objected, that God’s elect, while in a state of nature, are children of wrath, even as others, and therefore cannot be the objects of God’s love and delight; for how can they be children of wrath, and yet objects of love at one and the same time? To which I reply, that “a person may be the object of love and delight, and of displeasure and wrath, at one and the same time, in a different respect.” It is said of the Jews (Romans 11:28), as concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes; but touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes. But this will be bettor exemplified in the instance of Jesus Christ, “who standing in two different relations, and sustaining two “different capacities, was at one and the same time the object of his Father’s love and wrath; as he was the Son of God, he was always the object of his love and delight; but as he was the sinner’s surety, and while bearing the sins of his people in his own body on the tree, he was the object of his displeasure and wrath, which he sensibly felt, and therefore it is said (Psalm 89:38), Thou hast cast off and abhorred; thou heat been wrath with thine anointed. And yet even then, when he poured out his wrath to the uttermost on him, on the account of his people’s sins, when he ordered justice to draw its sword, and sheath it in him, his love towards him, as his Son, was not in the last abated.” Thus the elect of God, being considered in different views, may be truly said to be children of wrath, and objects of love at one and the same time; consider them in Adam, and under the covenant of works, they are children of wrath, they are deserving of the wrath of God, and are exposed to the curse of the law; but then as considered in Christ, and under the covenant of grace, they always were, and ever will be, the objects of God’s love and delight.
This doctrine, I apprehend, is no ways contrary to the purity and holiness of God’s nature; it does not follow, that because God loves and delights in his elect, while in a state of nature, that he loves and delights in their sins: God is of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look upon sin, with any approbation or delight (Habakkuk 2:13; 12). He is not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness, neither shall evil dwell with him. We are obliged to distinguish between the persons and sins of God’s people after conversion; it is allowed that God loves and delights in their persons, though he hates their sins. Now why the same distinction may not be allowed before conversion, as after, I see not; since it is not any thing that is done by them, nor any thing that is wrought in them, that is the ground and foundation of God’s love to and delight in them; but his love to and delight in them is the ground and foundation of all that he does for them, or works in them. No doubt, what he works in them is well-pleasing in his sight, but their acceptance with God, and their persons being well-pleasing to him, does not lie in this, but in the beloved. When, Sir, these things are considered by you, I hope you will no longer esteem it a fancy, that God should love and delight in his people while in a state of nature. But I go on,