Leigh:

The affections which Scripture attributes to God, are 1. Love, which is an act of the Divine Will, moving itself both to the most excellent good in itself, and to that excelling in the reasonable creature, approving it, delighting in it, and doing good to it. John 6:16, 35, Rom. 5:8. In which definitions two things are to be noted.

The primary object of God’s love is himself, for he takes great pleasure in himself. The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost love one another mutually. Matth. 3:7, and 17:5. John 3:33, 35. and 5:20. and 10:17. and 17:24. The secondary object of God’s love is the reasonable creature Angels and men. For though he approve of the goodness of other things, yet he has chosen that especially, to prosecute with his chiefest love: for these reasons.

1. For the excellency and beauty of the reasonable creature, when it is adorned with its due holiness.
2. Because between this only and God, there can be a mutual reciprocation of love, since it only has a sense, and acknowledgment of God’s goodness.
3. Because God bestows Eternity on that which he loves; but the other creatures besides the rational perish.

God’s love to Christ is the foundation of his love to us, Matth. 3:17. Ephes 1:6.
God loves all creatures with a general love. Matth. 5:44-45. as they are the work of his hands; but he doth delight in some especially, whom he has chosen in his Son, John 3:16. Ephes. 1:6. Psal. 106:4.

God loves his Elect before they love him; his love is actual and real in the purpose of it to them in Eternity. There are four expressions in Scripture to prove this:

1. He loves his people before they have the life of grace, Ephes. 4:5. 1 John 4:19. Rom. 5:8.
2. Before they have the life of nature, Rom. 9:11.
3. Before the exhibition of Christ, John 3:16.
4. Before the foundation of the world was laid,. Ephes 1:3. 2 Tim 1:9. Therefore God loves the elect more than the Reprobate, and our love is not the motive of his love.

Object. How could God love them when they are workers of iniquity, Hab. 1:13. Psal. 5:3,4. He loved their persons, but hated their works and ways. God loved Christ’s person, yet was angry at him when the guilt of our sins was upon him.

He loves his people, 1. Before conversion, Amore benevolentia, with a love of good-will and of pity, which is properly showed to one in misery, Ezek. 16:5.
2. After Conversion, with a love. 1. Of sympathy, Isa. 63:9. Heb 4:15. and 5:2. 2. Of Complacency and delight, Psal. 16:10, 11. that Psalm is a prophecy of Christ, see Ephes. 2:5. This love of his delight is discovered four ways:
1. By his valuing of his people, Since thou wast precious in my sight thou wast honourable.
2. By his commendation of his Church and people, as often, as often shown in the Canticles.
3. By his frequent visits; Luke 1:68. Rev. 3:20.
4. By revealing his counsels to them. John 15:15.

2. The effect or manner of God’s love is, that God makes the person happy whom he loves. For he doth amply reward that joy and delight which he takes in the holiness and obedience of the Elect, while he pours plentifully upon them all gifts, both grace and glory.

This love of God to the elect is:

1. Free, Hosea 15:5. he was moved with nothing but his own goodness, Ezek 16:8.
2. Sure and firm, and unchangeable, Rom. 5:8, 10. 1 John 4:10. John 13:1. and 31.
3. Infinite and Eternal, which shall never alter, John 3:16. It is without cessation, Psal. 27:10. Diminution Cant. 8:7. interruption, Rom. 8:35. to the end, or alteration, every created thing is immutable.

3. Effectual, as is declared both by his temporal and eternal blessings, 1 John 3:1. Dei amore est bonum velle.
4. Sincere, It is a love without any mixture, love, and nothing but love.
This is the motive which persuades Gods to communicate himself, and act for his people Isa. 63:9. Rev 3:19, and hath no motive but itself, Deut. 6:6,7,8. 1 John 4:3. God hath no need of us, or our love, nor doth not advantage himself by loving us, Job 22:2.

5. Great and ardent, John 3:16. and 15:13. Rom. 5:6,7. God bestows pledges of his love and favor upon them whom he has chosen, and sometimes he sheds the sense of his love abroad in their hearts, transforms us into his own image, Cant. 4:9. and 6:5. See Zech 3:17.

Edward Leigh, A System or Body of Divinity, (Printed by William Lee, at the Sign of the Turk’s-head in Fleet-street over against Fetter-lane, 1654), 167-168.

It is abundantly plain by the Holy Scriptures, and generally allowed, not only by Christian divines, but by the more considerable deists, that virtue most essentially consists in love. And I suppose, it is owned by the most considerable writers, to consist in general love of benevolence, or kind affection: though it seems to me, the meaning of some in this affair is not sufficiently explained, which perhaps occasions some error or confusion in discourses on this subject.

When I say, true virtue consists in love to being in general. I shall not be likely to be understood, that no one act of the mind or exercise of love is of the nature of true virtue, but what has being in general, or the great system of universal existence, for its direct and immediate object: so that no exercise of love, or kind affection, to any one particular being, that is but a small part of this whole, has any thing of the nature of true virtue. But that the nature of true virtue consists in a disposition to benevolence towards being in general; though from such a disposition may arise exercises of love to particular beings, as objects are presented and occasions arise. No wonder, that be who is of a generally benevolent disposition, should be more disposed than another to have his heart moved with benevolent affection to particular persons, with whom he is acquainted and conversant, and from whom arise the greatest and most frequent occasions for exciting his benevolent temper. But my meaning is, that no affections towards particular persons or beings are of the nature of true virtue, but such as arise from a generally benevolent temper, or from that habit or frame of mind, wherein consists a disposition to love being in general.

And perhaps it is needless for me to give notice to my readers, that when I speak of an intelligent being having a heart united and benevolently disposed to being in general, I thereby mean intelligent being in general. Not inanimate things, or beings that have no perception or will, which are not properly capable objects of benevolence.

Love is commonly distinguished into love of benevolence and love of complacence. Love of benevolence is that affection or propensity of the heart to any being, which causes it to incline to its well being, or disposes it to desire and take pleasure in its happiness. And if I mistake not, it is agreeable to the common opinion, that beauty in the object is not always the ground of this propensity; but that there may a disposition to the welfare of those that are not considered as beautiful; unless mere existence be accounted a beauty. And benevolence or goodness in the Divine Being is generally supposed, not only to be prior to the beauty of many of its objects, but to their existence; so as to be the ground both of their existence and their beauty, rather than they the foundation of God’s benevolence; as it is supposed that it is God’s goodness which moved him to give them both being and beauty. So that if all virtue primarily consists in that affection of heart to being, which is exercised in benevolence, or an inclination to its good, then God’s virtue is so extended as to include a propensity, not only to being actually existing and actually beautiful, but to possible being, so as to incline him to give being beauty and happiness.

What is commonly called love of complacence, presupposes beauty. For it is no other than delight in beauty; or complacence in the person or being beloved for his beauty. If virtue be the beauty of an intelligent being, and virtue consists in love, then it is a plain inconsistency to suppose that virtue primarily consists in any love to its object for its beauty; either in a love of complacence, which is delight in a being for his beauty, or in a love of benevolence, that has the beauty of its object for its foundation. For that would be to suppose, that the beauty of intelligent beings primarily consists in love to beauty; or that their virtue first of all consists in their love to virtue. Which is an inconsistency, and going in a circle. Because it makes virtue, or beauty of mind, the foundation or first motive of that love wherein virtue originally consists, or wherein the very first virtue consists; or it supposes the first virtue to be the consequence and effect of virtue. Which makes the first virtue, both the ground and the consequence, both cause and effect of itself. Doubtless virtue primarily consists in something else besides any effect or consequence of virtue. If virtue consists primarily in love to virtue, then virtue, the thing loved, is the love of virtue: so that virtue must consist in the love of the love of virtue. And if it be inquired, what that virtue is, which virtue consists in the love of the love of, it must be answered, it is the love of virtue. So that there must be the love of the love of the love of virtue — and so on ad infinitum. For there is no end of going back in a circle. We never come to any beginning or foundation; it is without beginning and hangs on nothing. — Therefore if the essence of virtue, or beauty of mind, lies in love, or a disposition to love, it must primarily consist in something different both from complacence, which is a delight in beauty, and also from any benevolence that has the beauty of its object for its foundation. Because it is absurd to say that virtue is primarily and first of all the consequence of itself. For this makes virtue primarily prior to itself.

Jonathan Edwards, The Nature of True Virtue, (University of Michigan: Ann Arbor: 1966), 4-6.

Sibbes:

The point is clear. I will not answer all the objections might be brought, only encounter with some of the main ones, which are brought by the papists against this truth. Saint Paul’s meaning, therefore, is not that he loved me with that love wherewith he loved all mankind. The apostle means a more special love, ‘He loved me so as he gave himself for me;’ that is, with a more special love than he bears to all mankind. This is a point that tends to God’s honour and man’s comfort ; for God hath the more praise and thanks from his elect, and those that are redeemed by the peculiarness of it, which the more it is, the more they acknowledge themselves bound unto God and Christ. These are they that are elected, these are they for whom the Scriptures are, for whom the world stands and Christ came, Ps. cxvi. 1. They love God and single him out, and the more they do so, God doth single them out to delight in. Peculiarity enhanceth and raiseth favours to higher degrees than otherwise. The fewer that are taken out of the world from the refuse of mankind, the more their hearts are inflamed to love God again. God, as the psalmist says, hath not dealt so with every nation, Ps. cxlvii. 20. When will a man be most thankful to God and give him glory, but when he can say, Thou hast not dealt so with the rest of the world ; what is in me more than in the rest of mankind ? I differ nothing from them but in thy peculiar love. Hereupon comes the heart to be knit in love unto Christ again.

Sibbes, “Salvation Applied,” in Works, 5:389.

Knox:

The people were slothful; and the priests, who should have provoked the people to tho remembrance of those great benefits, were become even like to the rest. The Lord therefor did raise up his Prophet Malachi, (who was the last before Christ), sharply to rebuke, and plainly to convict this horrible ingratitude of that unthankful nation, who so shamefully had forgotten those so great benefits recently bestowed upon them. And thus begins he his Prophecy: “I have loved yon, says the Lord;” in which words he speaks not of a common love, which in preserving and feeding all creatures is common to the reprobate, but of that love by which he had sanctified and separated them from the rest of nations, to have his glory manifested. But because they (as all ungrateful persons do) did not consider wherein this his love towards them more then towards others did stand, he bringing them to the fountain, demanding this question: “Was not Esau brother to Jacob? says the Lord, and nevertheless Jacob l have I loved, and Esau have hated.”

John Knox, “An Answere to a Great Nvmber of Blasphemovs Cavilations Written by an Anabaptist, and Aduersarie to Gods Eternall Predestination,” in The Works of John Knox, ed. David Laing (Edinburgh: Printed for the Bannatyne Club, 1851), 5: 151. [Spelling modernized.]