"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

selfishness and benevolence, as there will be between the state of the righteous and wicked to all eternity. And when this difference between the motives of the righteous and wicked shall be clearly exhibited at the last day, the sentence of eternal life and eternal death will carry full conviction to all intelligent beings, that the Judge of all the earth has done right. How important is it that all men should realize the infinite difference between benevolence and selfishness, upon which their eternal interests depend! How dangerous is it for sinners to expect to be rewarded for that for which they shall be eternally punished! And how criminal is it in those who undertake to show men the way of salvation, to flatter them in the way of destruction! But sinners love to be flattered, and to flatter themselves, with groundless hopes, which must lead to endless punishment and despair.

4. If Moses acted virtuously and acceptably to God in the view of a future and eternal reward, then it is no just objection against the gospel that it proposes future rewards and punishments to men, to induce them to shun the broad road to destruction, and walk in the strait and narrow way to eternal life. The Earl of Shaftsbury, one of the most celebrated deists in Britain, objects against the divinity of the gospel, because it promises eternal life to the obedient, and threatens eternal death to the disobedient. It cannot be denied that the gospel does promise eternal life and threaten eternal death, as motives to induce men to embrace it. Christ sent forth his ministers to preach the gospel to all the world, clothed with these solemn sanctions: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." These are the most weighty and powerful motives that could be proposed to mankind, in their present guilty and perishing state, to accept the offers of the gospel. And they are as well adapted to excite benevolence, as selfish exercises, in the hearts of all men. Nor can any comply with these motives, only in the exercise of true benevolence. Moses, and the patriarchs, and the prophets, and the primitive christians, complied with the terms of the gospel, from pure, disinterested love to God and man, and to themselves. Christ often and plainly declared, that no man could follow him and become his disciple, without exercising true disinterested love. When the amiable young man in the gospel desired him to point out the way to eternal life, he directed. him to renounce selfishness, and exercise and express disinterested benevolence. But he refused to do it, and went away sorrowful. Holiness and happiness are the only things which are good in their own nature; and sin and misery are the only things which are evil in their own nature. If men act at all,

they must act in the view of these motives. But they can act as benevolently as selfishly, in the view of these motives. Though the gospel, therefore, exhibits these motives before the minds of men, yet it does not require them to act selfishly in the view of them, but absolutely commands them to act benevolently in the view of them. There would be weight in Shaftsbury's objection, if the gospel required men to act selfishly in the view of future rewards and punishments. The rewards of the gospel are such, that none but those who possess disinterested benevolence can desire them, or obtain them, or enjoy them. Those who proposed to follow Christ and embrace the gospel upon selfish motives, he immediately condemned and rejected. It is only in the exercise of pure disinterested love, that any can have a due respect to the recompense of reward, and finally obtain it.

5. If Moses, in the exercise of disinterested love, obtained the recompense of reward to which he had respect, then all real saints have great encouragement to persevere in their religious course. They are in the way, in the very way that thousands have walked, and received a crown of glory which fadeth not away. All the promises of the gospel apply to them, and assure them of a future and eternal reward. They have not greater trials, difficulties, and obstacles to surmount, than Moses, and Joshua, and Caleb, and Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob surmounted. They have no more reason to be discouraged, than all the patriarchs, and prophets, and apostles had. But they endured to the end, and obtained the promised reward to which their eyes and hearts had respect. The reason was, they lived in the exercise of that disinterested love which many waters cannot quench, and which the floods cannot drown. Disinterested love will have the same powerful effect now, that it ever has had. While christians keep themselves in the love of God, it will dispose them cheerfully to give up what God calls them to give up, to endure what God calls them to endure, and to do what God calls them to do. God, in the gospel, has connected duty and happiness together. And christians cannot promote their own happiness more effectually and infallibly, than by seeking the glory of God and the interests of his kingdom; for all his interests are theirs, and they shall enjoy them as far as their capacities and desires will permit.

6. If Moses and other good men were governed by disinterested love in seeking and obtaining a future and eternal reward, then none have any reason to expect to obtain a crown of righteousness, without exercising true disinterested love. You may now call the distinction between selfishness and disinterested benevolence, a mere metaphysical and trifling distinction.