Proper Self-Love

“husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. ²⁹ After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— ³⁰ for we are members of his body.” Ephesians 5:28ff

“Love your neighbor as yourself.” There is a proper, right and holy self-love that is not sinfully selfish. We feed and care for our own bodies or our own self. To feed and care for ones self is a right love to self for to feed and care for ones self is an act of love.

Should we love God more than ourself?

“Whether or no a man ought to love God more than himself.

Self-love, taken in the most extensive sense, and love to God, are not things properly capable of being compared one with another: for they are not opposites, or things entirely distinct; but one enters into the nature of the other.

How does one enter into the nature of the other?

(love to ones own pleasure, good and happiness) Does God have a love to his own good and happiness?

Self-love is a man’s love of his own pleasure and happiness, and hatred of his own misery; or rather, ’tis only a capacity of enjoyment or suffering. For to say a man loves his own happiness and pleasure, is only to say that he delights in what he delights [in]; and to say that he hates his own misery, is only to say that he is grieved or afflicted in his own affliction. So that self-love is only a capacity of enjoying or taking delight in anything.

Now surely ’tis improper to say that our love to God is superior to our general capacity of delighting in anything.

Proportionable to our love to God is our disposition to delight in his good.

Now our delight in God’s good can’t be superior to our general capacity of delighting in anything; or which is the same thing, our delight in God’s good can’t be superior to our love to delight in general: for proportionably as we delight in God’s good, so shall we love that delight.

A desire of and delight in God’s good, is love to God; and love to delight is self-love. Now the degree of delight in a particular thing, and the degree of love to pleasure or delight in general, ben’t properly comparable one with another; for they are not entirely distinct, but one enters into the nature of the other. Delight in a particular thing includes a love to delight in general. A particular delight in anything can’t be said to be superior to love to delight in general: for always in proportion to the degree of delight is the love a man hath to that delight. For he loves greater delight more than less, in proportion as it is greater; if he did not love it more, it would not be a greater delight to him.

Love of benevolence to any person is an inclination to their good. But evermore equal to the inclination or desire anyone has of another’s good, is the delight he has in that other’s good if it be obtained, and the uneasiness if it be not obtained. But equal to that delight, is a person’s love to that delight; and equal to that uneasiness, is his hatred of that uneasiness. But love to our own delight or hatred of our own uneasiness, is self-love; so that no love to another can be superior to self-love, as most extensively taken.

Self-love is a man’s love to his own good; but self-love may be taken in two senses, as any good may be said to be a man’s own good in two senses.

(1) Any good whatsoever that a man any way enjoys, or anything that he takes delight in, it is thereby his own good. Whether it be a man’s own proper and separate pleasure or honor, or the pleasure or honor of another, our delight in it renders it our own good, in proportion as we delight in it. ‘Tis impossible that a man should delight in any good that is not his own; for to say that, would be to say that he delights in that in which he does not delight. Now take self-love for a man’s love to his own good in this more general sense, and love to God can’t be superior to it.

But (2) a person’s good may be said to be his own good, as ’tis his proper and separate good, which is his and what he has delight in directly and immediately. And love to good that is a man’s own in this sense, is what is ordinarily called self-love; and superior to this, love to God can and ought to be.

Self-love is either [(1)] simple mere self-love; which is a man’s love to his own proper, single, and separate good, and is what arises simply and necessarily from the nature of a perceiving willing being. It necessarily arises from that, without the supposition of any other principle. I therefore call it simple self-love, because it arises simply from that principle, viz. the nature of a perceiving willing being. Self-love taken in this sense, and love to God are entirely distinct, and don’t enter one into the nature of the other at all.

There is (2) a compounded self-love, which is exercised in the delight that a man has in the good of another; it is the value that he sets upon that delight. This I call compounded self-love, because it arises from a compounded– 75 —

principle. It arises from the necessary nature of a perceiving and willing being, whereby he loves his own pleasure or delight; but not from this alone. But it supposes also another principle that determines the exercise of this principle, and makes that to become its object which otherwise cannot: a certain principle uniting this person with another, that causes the good of another to be its good. The first arises simply from his own being, whereby that which agrees immediately and directly with his own being, is his good; the second arises also from a principle uniting him to another being, whereby the good of that other being does in a sort become his own. This second sort of self-love is not entirely distinct from love to God, but enters into its nature.

Corol. Hence ’tis impossible for any person to be willing to be perfectly and finally miserable for God’s sake, for this supposes love to God to be superior to self-love in the most general and extensive sense of self-love, which enters into the nature of love to God. It may be possible, that a man may be willing to be deprived of all his own proper separate good for God’s sake; but then he is not perfectly miserable but happy, in the delight that he hath in God’s good: for he takes greater delight in God’s good, for the sake of which he parts with his own, than he did in his own. So that the man is not perfectly miserable, he is not deprived of all delight, but he is happy. He has greater delight in what is obtained for God, than he had in what he has lost of his own; so that he has only exchanged a lesser joy for a greater.

But if a man is willing to be perfectly miserable for God’s sake, then he is willing to part with all his own separate good. But he must be willing also to be deprived of that which is indirectly his own, viz. God’s good; which supposition is inconsistent with itself. For to be willing to be deprived of this latter sort of good, is opposite to that principle of love to God itself, from whence such a willingness is supposed to arise. Love to God, if it be superior to any other principle, will make a man forever unwilling, utterly and finally to be deprived of this part of his happiness, which he has in God’s being blessed and glorified; and the more he loves him the more unwilling he will be. So that this supposition, that a man can be willing to be perfectly and utterly miserable out of love to God, is inconsistent with itself.

Note. That love of God which we have hitherto spoken of, is a love of benevolence only. But this is to be observed, that there necessarily accompanies a love of benevolence, a love of appetite, or complacence (delight in holiness); which is a disposition to desire or delight in beholding the beauty of another, and a relation to or union with him. Self-love in its most general extent,– 76 —

is very much concerned in this, and is not entirely distinct from it. The difference is only this, that self-love is a man’s desire of or delight in his own happiness, and this love of complacence is a placing of his happiness, which he thus desires and delights in, in a particular object.

This sort of love, which is always in proportion to a love of benevolence, is also inconsistent with a willingness to be utterly miserable for God’s sake: for if the man is utterly miserable, he is utterly excluded [from] the enjoyment of God; but how can man’s love of complacence towards God be gratified in this? The more a man loves God, the more unwilling will he be, to be deprived of this happiness.”

---

Eating, brushing teeth, going to the doctor etc. All forms of proper and right self-love.

I. I would show the nature of that selfishness of which charity is the opposite. — And
here I would observe,

1. Negatively, that charity, or the spirit of Christian love, is not contrary to all self-love.
   — It is not a thing contrary to Christianity that a man should love himself, or, which is the same thing, should love his own happiness. If Christianity did indeed tend to destroy a man’s love to himself, and to his own happiness, it would therein tend to destroy the very spirit of humanity; but the very announcement of the gospel, as a system of peace on earth and goodwill toward men (Luke 2:14), shows that it is not only not destructive of humanity, but in the highest degree promotive of its spirit. That
   a man should love his own happiness, is as necessary to his nature as the faculty of the will is and it is impossible that such a love should be destroyed in any other way than by destroying his being. The saints love their own happiness. Yea, those that are perfect in happiness, the saints and angels in heaven, love their own happiness; otherwise, that happiness which God hath given them would be no happiness to them; for that which anyone does not love he cannot enjoy any happiness in. That to love ourselves is not unlawful, is evident also from the fact, that the law of
   God makes self-love a rule and measure by which our love to others should be regulated. Thus, Christ commands (Mat. 19:19), “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” which certainly supposes that we may, and must, love ourselves. It is not said more than thyself, but as thyself. But we are commanded to love our neighbor next to God; and therefore we are to love ourselves with a love next to that which we should exercise toward God himself. And the same appears also from the fact, that the Scriptures, from one end of the Bible to the other, are full of motives that are set forth for the very purpose of working on the principle of self-love. Such are all the
   promises and threatenings of the Word of God, its calls and invitations, its counsels to seek our own good, and its warnings to beware of misery. These things can have no influence on us in any other way than as they tend to work upon our hopes or fears. For to what purpose would it be to make any promise of happiness, or hold forth any threatening of misery, to him that has no love for the former or dread of the latter? Or what reason can there be in counseling him to seek the one, or warning him to avoid the other? Thus it is plain, negatively, that charity, or the spirit of Christian love, is not contrary to all self-love. But I remark still further,
2. Affirmatively, that the selfishness which charity, or a Christian spirit, is contrary to, is only an inordinate self-love. — Here, however, the question arises, in what does this inordinateness consist? This is a point that needs to be well stated and clearly settled; for the refutation of many scruples and doubts that persons often have, depends upon it. And therefore, I answer,
3. First, that the inordinateness of self-love does not consist in our love of our own happiness being, absolutely considered, too great in degree. — I do not suppose it can be said of any, that their love to their own happiness, if we consider that love absolutely and not comparatively, can be in too high a degree, or that it is a thing that is liable either to increase or diminution. For I apprehend that self-love, in this sense, is not a result of the fall, but is necessary, and what belongs to the nature of all intelligent beings, and that God has made it alike in all; and that saints, and sinners, and all alike, love happiness, and have the same unalterable and instinctive inclination to desire and seek it. The change that takes place in a man, when he is
   converted and sanctified, is not that his love for happiness is diminished, but only that it is regulated with respect to its exercises and influence, and the courses and objects it leads to. Who will say that the happy souls in heaven do not love happiness as truly as the miserable spirits in hell? If their love of happiness is diminished by their being made holy, then that will diminish their happiness itself; for the less anyone loves happiness, the less he relishes it, and, consequently, is the less happy.
   When God brings a soul out of a miserable state and condition into a happy state, by conversion, he gives him happiness that before he had not, but he does not at the same time take away any of his love of happiness. And so, when a saint increases in grace, he is made still more happy than he was before; but his love of happiness, and his relish of it, do not grow less as his happiness itself increases, for that would be to increase his happiness one way, and to diminish it another. But in every case in which God makes a miserable soul happy, or a happy soul still more happy, he
   continues the same love of happiness that existed before. And so, doubtless, the saints ought to have as much of a principle of love to their own happiness, or love to themselves, which is the same thing, as the wicked have. So that, if we consider men’s love of themselves or of their own happiness absolutely, it is plain that the inordinateness of self-love does not consist in its being in too great a degree, because it is alike in all. But I remark,
   Secondly, that the inordinateness of self-love, wherein a corrupt selfishness does consist, lies in two things: — in its being too great comparatively; and in placing our happiness in that which is confined to self. In the first place, the degree of self-love may be too great comparatively, and so the degree of its influence be inordinate.
   Though the degree of men’s love of their own happiness, taken absolutely, may in all be the same, yet the proportion that their love of self bears to their love for others may not be the same. If we compare a man’s love of himself with his love for others, it may be said that he loves himself too much — that is, in proportion too much. And though this may be owing to a defect of love to others, rather than to an excess of love to himself, yet self-love, by this excess in its proportion, itself becomes inordinate in this respect, viz. that it becomes inordinate in its influence and government of the man. For though the principle of self-love, in itself considered, is
   not at all greater than if there is a due proportion of love to God and to fellow creatures with it, yet, the proportion being greater, its influence and government of the man become greater; and so its influence becomes inordinate by reason of the weakness or absence of other love that should restrain or regulate that influence.
   To illustrate this, we may suppose the case of a servant in a family, who was formerly kept in the place of a servant, and whose influence in family affairs was not inordinate while his master’s strength was greater than his; and yet, if afterward the master grows weaker and loses his strength, and the rest of the family lose their former power, though the servant’s strength be not at all increased, yet, the proportion of his strength being increased, his influence may become inordinate, and, from being in
   subjection and a servant, he may become master m that house. And so self-love becomes inordinate. Before the fall, man loved himself, or his own happiness, as much as after the fall; but then, a superior principle of divine love had the throne, and was of such strength, that it wholly regulated and directed self-love. But since the fall, the principle of divine love has lost its strength, or rather is dead; so that self-love,
   continuing in its former strength, and having no superior principle to regulate it, becomes inordinate in its influence, and governs where it should be subject, and only a servant. Self-love, then, may become inordinate in its influence by being comparatively too great, either by love to God and to fellow creatures being too small, as it is in the saints, who in this world have great remaining corruption, or by its being none at all, as is the case with those who have no divine love in their hearts.
4. Thus the inordinateness of self-love, with respect to the degree of it, is not as it is considered absolutely, but comparatively, or with respect to the degree of its influence. In some respects wicked men do not love themselves enough — not so much as the godly do; for they do not love the way of their own welfare and happiness; and in this sense it is sometimes said of the wicked that they hate themselves, though, in another sense, they love self too much.
   It is further true, in the second place, that self-love, or a man’s love to his own happiness, may be inordinate, in placing that happiness in things that are confined to himself. In this case, the error is not so much in the degree of his love to himself as it is in the channel in which it flows. It is not in the degree in which he loves his own happiness, but in his placing his happiness where he ought not, and in limiting and confining his love. Some, although they love their own happiness, do not place that
   happiness in their own confined good, or in that good which is limited to themselves, but more in the common good — in that which is the good of others, or in the good to be enjoyed in and by others. A man’s love of his own happiness, when it runs in this last channel, is not what is called selfishness, but is the very opposite of it. But there are others who, in their love to their own happiness, place that happiness in good things that are confined or limited to themselves, to the exclusion of others. And this
   is selfishness. This is the thing most clearly and directly intended by that self-love
   which the Scripture condemns. And when it is said that charity seeks not her own, we are to understand it of her own private good — good limited to herself. The expression, “her own,” is a phrase of appropriation, and properly carries in its signification the idea of limitation to self. And so the like phrase in Phil. 2:21, that “all seek their own,” carries the idea of confined and self-appropriated good, or the good
   that a man has singly and to himself, and in which he has no communion or
   partnership with another, but which he has so circumscribed and limited to himself as
   to exclude others. And so the expression is to be understood in 2 Tim. 3:2, “For men shall be lovers of their own selves;” for the phrase is of the most confined signification, limited to self alone, and excluding all others.
   A man may love himself as much as one can, and may be, in the exercise of a high degree of love to his own happiness, ceaselessly longing for it, and yet he may so place that happiness, that, in the very act of seeking it, he may be in the high exercise of love to God; as, for example, when the happiness that he longs for, is to enjoy God, or to behold his glory, or to hold communion with him. Or a man may place his happiness in glorifying God. It may seem to him the greatest happiness that he can conceive of, to give God glory, as he may do; and he may long for this happiness. And in longing for it, he loves that which he looks on as his happiness; for
   if he did not love what in this case he esteemed his happiness, he would not long for it; and to love his happiness is to love himself. And yet, in the same act, he loves God, because he places his happiness in God; for nothing can more properly be called love to any being or thing, than to place our happiness in it. And so persons may place their happiness considerably in the good of others — their neighbors, for instance — and, desiring the happiness that consists in seeking their good, they may,
   in seeking it, love themselves and their own happiness. And yet this is not
   selfishness, because it is not a confined self-love; but the individual’s self-love flows out in such a channel as to take in others with himself. The self that he loves is, as it were, enlarged and multiplied, so that, in the very acts in which he loves himself, he loves others also. And this is the Christian spirit, the excellent and noble spirit of the
   gospel of Jesus Christ. This is the nature of that divine love, or Christian charity, that is spoken of in the text. And a Christian spirit is contrary to that selfish spirit which consists in the self-love that goes out after such objects as are confined and limited
   — such as a man’s worldly wealth, or the honor that consists in a man’s being set up higher in the world than his neighbors, or his own worldly ease and convenience, or his pleasing and gratifying his own bodily appetites and lusts.