Moses to have respect to such a reward as God set before him. He must desire, in the exercise of pure, disinterested, and universal benevolence, that God should be glorified; that his nation should be happy; and that he himself should be blessed in the everlasting enjoyment of God. These were the things contained in the reward set before him; and these were the things which were set before all other sincere servants of God. And we find that such men have always had respect to such a recompense of reward. God told Abraham that, if he would walk before him and be perfect, he would be his shield and exceeding great reward. And it appears that he and other patriarchs did, in the view of such a reward, walk before God with a perfect heart. For we are told, "These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things, declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned; but now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly. Wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for he hath prepared for them a city." As all these saints were disinterested in having respect to the recompense of reward, so was Moses. Besides, we find in the next chapter, the same account of Christ's conduct, which the apostle exhibits as an example to all his followers. "Looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith; who, for the joy that was set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God." Christ, we know, always acted from disinterested love. He came not to do his own will, but the will of his Father. And in his most trying situation he said to his Father, "Not my will, but thine be done." Yet we see that, in all his obedience and sufferings, he had respect to the joy set before him, which was his reward. Accordingly he prayed for the bestowment of his reward. “I have glorified thee on earth, I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." If Christ and saints could seek a divine reward in the exercise of pure, disinterested love, why could not Moses have respect to a recompense of reward in the exercise of pure, disinterested love? It is certain that true love to

God and man must have produced such a respect. So far as the reward consisted in the glory of God and the good of his people, it is easy to see that nothing but disinterested love could have disposed him to seek it. And so far as it consisted in his

own enjoyment of God, it is not less evident that nothing but disinterested love could dispose him to seek it. No selfish man ever desired the enjoyment of God for its own sake, as a source of real happiness. But those who have disinterested love to God, do desire the enjoyment of him, and esteem it as the best reward of all their labors and sufferings. We may justly conclude, therefore, that Moses was entirely disinterested in having respect to such a reward as God had set before him, because no other than disinterested love would or could lead him to desire, and prepare him to enjoy, such a recompense of reward.

IMPROVEMENT.

1. If Moses was really disinterested in having respect to the recompense of reward, then real saints may be as disinterested in seeking their own good, as in seeking the good of others. Many appear to be greatly prejudiced against the doctrine of disinterested benevolence, because they suppose that it implies a total disregard to personal good. They suppose that while a man is seeking the good of others, he must all that time entirely disregard his own good; and they cannot conceive it to be right for any man to disregard his own good, any more than to disregard the good of others. This is undoubtedly true; and therefore the doctrine of disinterested love does not require any person to disregard his own interest or happiness. You will now ask, What is the difference between selfishness and disinterested benevolence? If disinterested benevolence allows and disposes a man to seek his own good, as really as selfishness, wherein lies the great and essential difference between a selfish man and a benevolent man; which is represented of such great importance? The character and conduct of Moses will very plainly illustrate this subject, and clear up this difficulty. Moses had respect to the recompense of reward; that is, he really sought his own future and eternal happiness; and he had a right to seek this great and important object. But this object, great and important as it was, was as light as the dust on the balance, in comparison to other objects which he ought to seek, and did seek; and therefore, though he regarded his own good, yet he was willing to give it up for the sake of promoting the greater good of others. Accordingly, he chose to relinquish the treasures of Egypt, for the sake of promoting the temporal good of his nation; and, from the same disinterested benevolence, he was willing that God should blot his name out of the book of life, if that might be the means of the temporal and eternal salvation of three millions of people. Though Paul regarded his own everlasting good, yet he solemnly declares,

"I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ, for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh." Though Aquila and Priscilla regarded their own lives, yet they were willing to lay down their own necks for the sake of preserving the life of Paul. It is the nature and tendency of disinterested benevolence, to dispose those who possess it to give up their own good for the sake of promoting the greater good of others. But their giving up their own good for the sake of promoting the greater good of others, does not imply that, in such cases, they totally disregard their own good. It only implies that they place a just value upon their own good in comparison with the good of others, and give up a less good for a greater. When Moses gave up the treasures of Egypt for the sake of promoting the deliverance of his nation from cruel bondage, it did not imply that he totally disregarded the treasures of Egypt. When he was willing that God should blot his name out of the book of life, for the sake of preserving his nation from temporal and eternal ruin, it did not imply that he disregarded his own eternal happiness, but only that he regarded their eternal good more than his own. And when Aquila and Priscilla offered to lay down their own lives for the sake of preserving Paul's, it did not imply that they disregarded their own lives, but only that they regarded Paul's life more than their own lives. If a man who has a hundred guineas in his purse should give them to the robber, to spare his life, would that imply he did not value his guineas at all? No; it would only imply that he loved his life more than his money. Neither Moses, nor any other good man, ever disregarded his own good in the exercise of disinterested benevolence to others, but only regarded their greater good more than his own inferior good. Where then is the absurdity, in the doctrine of disinterested benevolence, which is so often complained of?

But still you will ask-Wherein does the benevolent man differ so essentially from the selfish man? For the selfish man will give up his hundred guineas to save his life, or any greater good of his own, for a greater good in reversion. But will he give up a less good of his own for a greater good of others? No; he will never do this in a single instance. But the benevolent man will give up a less good of his own for a greater good of others. And the reason is, he places his happiness in the happiness of others. But no selfish man ever placed his happiness in the good of others, but entirely in his own good. He loves himself, but not the glory of God. He loves himself, but no other being in the universe; and were it necessary, and could he do it, he would not only disregard, but destroy the good of the whole universe. Does not such a man essentially

differ from Moses, from Paul, from Aquila and Priscilla, from the martyrs, and from every man who loves his neighbor as himself? I now ask Is there not a difference between selfishness and disinterested benevolence? Is there not an essential difference between selfishness and disinterested benevolence? Is there not a plain and intelligible difference between selfishness and disinterested benevolence? Is it not important this difference should be known? Can any doctrine or duty of the gospel be clearly understood, without understanding this difference? It is not strange, therefore, that those who misunderstand and deny this doctrine, should misunderstand and deny the doctrine of total depravity, the doctrine of divine sovereignty, the doctrine of unconditional submission, the doctrine of instantaneous regeneration, the doctrine of saints' perseverance, the doctrine of eternal punishment, and the doctrine of self denial in all cases. To say this doctrine of disinterested benevolence cannot be understood, or need not be understood, is virtually saying that no doctrine of the gospel can be, or need be understood.

2. If Moses had respect, in the exercise of disinterested benevolence, to a future and eternal reward, then saints may and do regard their own eternal good more than sinners. Sinners desire to be happy, not only while they live, but when they die. And when they are really awakened to see their hearts, and their relation to a future and eternal state, they cannot help feeling the importance of securing eternal happiness beyond the grave. Their self love rises into most sensible and vigorous exercise, and leads them to seek, and strive to obtain the happiness of heaven. But they have no desire to obtain the kingdom of heaven, only for the sake of escaping the kingdom of darkness. But they do not value future and eternal happiness, so much as their present temporal happiness, which they refuse to give up for the sake of obtaining heaven and escaping hell. Indeed, they have no direct desires to obtain heaven, to which they have a strong and unconquerable aversion; but only to escape endless punishment. They do not value themselves so much as not to be willing to be annihilated, in order to escape the misery they fear. But saints, who love God supremely, and the good of the universe, have a just estimate of the value of their souls, which renders them capable of both serving and enjoying God for ever. Their own holy happiness appears unspeakably great, and they would not give it up for any thing but the glory of God, and the greater good of the universe. The primitive christians said, "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable." The more saints love God, and the more they love their fellow men, the more

they value their precious souls, which are capable of making eternal advances in holiness, happiness and usefulness. Disinterested love to themselves makes them value themselves far more than selfish love could make them value themselves. Indeed careless and secure sinners value themselves only on account of their usefulness to themselves; and as soon as they find themselves incapable of promoting their own happiness, they would be willing not only to die, but cease to exist. This is the real wish of every unholy creature, who loves himself supremely. But every real christian, who possesses disinterested love, is willing to be absent from the body, that he may be present with the Lord, where he may be not only happy, but useful for ever. Moses continued to serve God after his arrival in heaven; and so will all good men be useful after they have done serving God and their generation in this world. Good men, therefore, view themselves vastly more valuable, than sinners view themselves. They do not appear to themselves to be good for any thing in future. And they will be as worthless as tares and chaff, in comparison with the wheat.

3. If those who act from disinterested benevolence deserve to be rewarded, then those who act from selfish and mercenary motives deserve to be punished. Moses, who acted from disinterested motives, had the merit of congruity, though not of condignity. There was a propriety in the nature of things, that he should receive the great and glorious reward to which he had respect. Though God was not under obligation, in point of commutative justice, to reward him for his signal services, yet he was bound, in point of propriety, to recompense him for all his benevolent and self denying conduct. And there is the same propriety in God's rewarding all good men for all their virtuous and disinterested conduct. Accordingly we find a multitude of promises made to those who love and serve God from pure benevolent motives, but as many threatenings of punishment to those who act from selfish and mercenary motives. God looketh on the heart, and not on the outward appearance. He approves of every thing done from benevolent motives, and condemns every thing done from selfish motives. He condemns and approves of the same actions, when done from different motives. He approves of the prayers of the upright, but condemns the prayers of the wicked. He approves of the righteous for coming to his house of worship, but condemns the wicked for treading his courts. He approves of the alms of the righteous, but condemns the alms of the wicked. The dispensation of such rewards and punishments will be perfectly right upon the principle of disinterested benevolence; but upon no other principle. For there is as wide a difference between