07. 7. Obedience for the Sake of Reward

7. Obedience for the Sake of Reward Query 5: May Christ’s freemen perform duties for the sake of reward?

Three Opinions Respecting This Stated And Examined There are three opinions concerning this question:

The Council of Trent pronounces a curse on those who say that a justified person does not merit eternal life by his obedience. And what would not the proud heart of a man do, if by doing he might merit heaven? What torments have the very heathen endured, out of the belief that they would come to happiness by them? And what would not others do? I have read of one who said that he would swim through a sea of brimstone if he might but come to heaven at last. Men would be at great pains, and would spare no cost, if what they did might be looked upon as a laying out for heaven, and as the purchase of glory and the wages for work. The proud heart of man would fain have that of debt which God has decreed to be of grace. He desires to obtain that by purchase which God intends to be a free gift. But such opinions as these have no place in our inquiry. Certainly, though we may do good works, and walk in the ways of obedience and with an eye to the recompense of the reward, yet none of us holds that these things are to be done with reference to our meriting of it. The apostle tells us that it is not of debt but of grace (Romans 4:4); and again, ‘By grace ye are saved’ (Ephesians 2:5; Ephesians 2:8-10). And yet again. The gift of God is eternal life’ (Romans 6:23). ‘Glory is not the wages of a servant, but the inheritance of a son.’ Thus Calvin speaks, while Augustine says, ‘God crowns His gifts, not our merits.’

Indeed, what are all our works in comparison with that glory? If all our sufferings are not worthy to be compared to the glory that shall be revealed, what then are our doings? It was a saying of Anselm, ‘If a man should serve God a thousand years, he could never by that service deserve half a day, in fact not one moment of time, in that eternal glory. ‘

We shall therefore cast man’s deservings out of our inquiry; it is too gross for Christian ears. The apostle tells us plainly:, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us’ (Titus 3:5). ‘Not by works of righteousness ‘, that is, not by our own works, even though we were to say, as some of the more moderate of our adversaries do, ‘our own works sprinkled with the blood of Christ’. All are injurious to grace. For by grace are we saved, and grace is in no way grace if not every way grace. But here we leave such adversaries, and turn to other opinions which are to be debated.

These two last opinions need examination. We have rejected the first opinion as quite inconsistent with the nature of grace and the freedom of the Gospel; but these two other opinions are held by some as consistent with grace and Christian freedom. Yet these two seem to be mutually contradictory. One of them says that we are to do holy service and not to cast an eye upon the recompense of the reward. The other says that we may have respect to the recompense of the reward in the performance of holy duties. The first opinion, that we are not to have respect to the recompense of the reward, is supported by the following arguments:

4· Because all the blessings we seek are fully purchased by Jesus Christ and provided for in Christ. Therefore they are not our purchase. We do not obey that we may get this or that; but because glory is purchased for us, and we are persuaded thereof, therefore we obey the commands of God. As for the other opinion, that we may rightly have respect to the recompense of the reward in our obedience, it is managed and defended by the following arguments:

Thus I have set forth the various opinions of others and the arguments by which they support them. Now, by way of reconciliation, and in order to show that which I myself apprehend to be the truth in this controversy, I shall speak of three matters: what is meant by reward; what is meant by the eyeing of the reward; and whether the eyeing of the reward is in any way an infringement of Christian freedom.

What Is Meant by Rewards?

First we shall consider, What is meant by rewards? Rewards may be said to be either temporal, or spiritual, or eternal. Temporal rewards are those mercies which we enjoy in this present life, whether personal or relative, and these in turn may be positive or negative - health, comfort, food, raiment, house, shelter, riches, freedom, deliverance, and so on. Spiritual rewards are the blessings which concern the soul - justification, sanctification, grace, the increase of grace, victory over our lusts, comfort, peace, joy, communion with God. Eternal rewards, which are the main consideration in this controversy, are glory, life, immortality, as the apostle names them in Romans 2:5-7 : ‘God will render to every man according to his works; to them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life.’ In a word, this eternal reward is the enjoyment of God, of Christ, of the Spirit. It is perfect freedom from sin, it is perfect holiness, it is indeed grace glorified. This is the true eternal reward. This must suffice for the first point.

What Is Meant by the Eyeing of Rewards?

What is meant, in the next place, by the eyeing of the reward? It is the phrase which the apostle uses of Moses who had respect unto the recompense of the reward (Hebrews 11:26). We must explain what is intended by this. There is a threefold eye: the eye of knowledge, whereby a man sees and knows the excellency of a thing; the eye of faith, whereby he believes the truth of it, and his interest in it; and the eye of hope, and thereupon of patience and waiting in expectation for the enjoyment of the promise. In all these respects Moses may be said to have eyed the recompense of the reward. Moses eyed it by knowledge. He knew those things which were laid up for him. He saw Him that was invisible, as the next verse tells us. And he saw that those rewards which God had laid up for His people were much to be preferred to the pleasures of sin. He also had the eye of faith, whereby he was persuaded both of the truth of the promise, that such things were reserved, and of his own part in them, and that he should possess this glory. Also, he had an eye of hope; he was willing to wait, and to expect the enjoyment of all this. He was patient. See Hebrews 10:36 : ‘Ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.’ For these reasons, Moses esteemed the reproach of Christ above all the treasures of Egypt, for, says the text, he had an eye to the recompense of the reward. What is that? Shall we say that he had respect to that glory which he should purchase or enjoy by doing this, or for doing this? No! It was because he knew that the glory was reserved for him, because he believed that he should possess it, because he hoped for it and expected it. That is why he despised the riches and pleasures of the world, as not worthy to be compared with it. Agreeable to this truth are the words of Colossians 3:23-24 : ‘Whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men: knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.’ See also Hebrews 10:34 : ‘Knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance’. Thus much for the second matter. Is the Eyeing of Rewards an Infringement of Christian Liberty?

We now come to the third point for consideration; whether to do duty with an eye to the recompense of the reward is any infringement of Christian freedom. I answer: If a man is prepared to look at the matter as I have just been explaining it, and to consider the knowing and the believing and the hoping for that glory which God has promised the believer, then, I say, it is no infringement of our Christian liberty to do duty with an eye to the recompense of the reward. Rather would I say that herein our Christian liberty consists, that the knowledge, the faith, the persuasion, the hope and expectation of the glory which God has reserved for us, all conspire to quicken us in our obedience and thereby to make us free indeed in our obedience to God. In brief, then, if a man is prepared to take this eyeing of the recompense of reward in the manner which I have said, then a man may do duty with an eye to the recompense of the reward. And indeed a Christian should act thus. Duty should be performed with the knowledge and faith and persuasion that God will bless us and never depart from us in doing us good. We know, too, that God is our father and that He has pardoned our sins. We know that God will glorify us at last. With such knowledge, we are to obey and give up ourselves to all the ways of obedience, love and service of God, as the apostle says, ‘And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily to the Lord, knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance’ (Colossians 3:23-24). If, on the other hand, a man takes the eyeing of the reward to mean that it is a method of obtaining temporal, spiritual, and eternal mercies, then I must pause and answer by making some distinctions.

1. With reference to temporal blessings

We shall consider the matter first in respect of temporal blessings. Some affirm that it is right that a Christian man should do duty to God with a view to receiving from God His outward mercies and the enjoyments of this present life. I know that this opinion is upheld by holy and learned men, who, in their own walk nevertheless seem to pay but scant heed to the recompense of reward. They maintain that God has propounded these rewards as motives and incentives to obedience, and that the best of saints have eyed them in their obedience; therefore they may do the same. To take off all suspicion of mercenariness of spirit in so doing, they are apt to distinguish between supreme grounds and ends in service, and subordinate grounds and ends. They say that though the things of this life may be the subordinate ground and end of such service, yet they are not to be the ultimate and supreme ground and ends of service. We may eye them with reference and subordination to God’s glory and our good and salvation, but not so as to place them in the forefront, as if they were above the glory of God and our salvation. These are the usual cautionary distinctions put forward by the men who hold to this position.

I respect the persons and judgments of such men, although what I advance may be somewhat different, yet I do not suppose that it will be altogether contrary to that which they have maintained.

I shall at this point re-state the query, which is, whether a man may do duty and obey God in reference to God’s bestowing temporal good things on him. I conceive, first, that the man named in the query must be taken for a Christian man, or a man in Christ. If the query is concerned with a carnal man, it must be understood that such a man neither obeys God from right principles nor upon right grounds, nor after a right manner for right ends. We may say of all his obedience that it is but carnal. The man has carnal principles, grounds, and ends in all that he does. It may truly be said of him what God said of the Jews when they fasted and prayed, they did not at all do this as unto God - see Hosea 7:14 : ‘They assemble themselves for corn and wine, and they rebel against me’. These Jews merely sought belly-blessings; self was the ground, and self was the end of all. They did not serve God because of what He is in Himself, but for their own advantage. They sought not Him but His, as with those who followed the Lord because they did eat of the loaves and were filled. There are many thousands who are moved, not by any inward spring of obedience, but by these outward matters. As with a clock which is worked by outward weights and cannot move when these are taken away, so it is with such men, who stand still and cannot stir. The carnal heart cries, ‘Who will show us any good?’ They count godliness no gain, if they can make no gain of godliness. If, instead of gain, they meet with loss; if, instead of advantage, they meet with persecution; if, instead of a good name, they meet with reproach for Christ; then they immediately cast off religion and obedience. They take up with religion merely to serve their own ends, and for similar ends they disclaim it. He that will serve God for something will serve the devil for more. If he can increase his wages, he is for any master. Therefore, by ‘man’ in the query, I conceive is meant a Christian man, or a man in Christ. By the ‘good things’ of the query, I conceive is meant outward good things, those things which the world reckons and esteems to be good things, as riches, honour, greatness, applause; at least, a competency and a sufficiency of temporal and outward good things. By serving God or performing duty to God, as mentioned in the query, I conceive is meant all acts of obedience, not only outward conformity to God’s requirements, but inward subjection to the laws and commands of Christ. By the eyeing of these temporal good things in service, I conceive is not meant the making of these things either the main reasons for service, or the supreme and primary ends and aims of service, for that would be abominable, but the having a respect unto the enjoyment of temporal good as a subordinate reason for serving God, and a means of quickening the Christian man in working. Thus, then, we have examined the nature of the query. I shall now come to the answer, and in this I hope that the three following particulars will be agreed:

i. The binding grounds. The Christian obeys because God has commanded, as we have it in Psalms 119:4-5 : ‘Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently. O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes!’

So far there is general agreement. All the controversy is about the next point. I desire to propound it in all modesty for the consideration of those who are of different judgment in the matter.

We are to consider whether the performance by a Christian man of duty to God may have reference to God’s bestowal of outward mercies on him in this life, considered as a subordinate end. Consider the following points:

(2) Duty done for reward, even as a subordinate end, seems to lay down a rule for God to follow. It seems to limit God, and to depart from submission to His wisdom in His disposal of us.

The apostle seems to speak after this manner in 2 Corinthians 7:1 : ‘Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.’ He argues here from mercy to duty, not from duty to mercy. He reasons here from the enjoyment of promises to the performance of obedience:, Having therefore such promises, let us obey’. Likewise in Colossians 3:24 :, Whatsoever ye do, do it heartily as to the Lord and not to men; knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance.’ Here the apostle enforces the duty from the persuasion and knowledge of Christians that God will assuredly bestow the blessings on them. So, too, in Hebrews 10:34 : Ye took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance.’ However, I am not to deal at this point with eternal, but with temporal rewards, and I urge these Scriptures no further than to strengthen what I said before, that it is better to say we obey from mercies promised rather than to say that we obtain mercies by our obedience. Certain it is that the less we seek to obtain mercies because of our obedience the more will God have an eye to our obedience; the less regard we have to the temporal rewards in our service, the more will God have respect to that service; the less we make temporal blessings the end of our service, the more value will God see in that service. Indeed the enjoyment of outward things seems to me to be too low a principle of action in a Christian’s obedience. The apostle says,, We look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal’ (2 Corinthians 4:18). But it may be objected that God has promised all good things to obedience, as the apostle tells us in 1 Timothy 4:8 : ‘Godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come’; and therefore it is right to obey with respect to the enjoyment of these blessings.

Before I answer this objection, I will propound one thing, and query two. That which I propound is this: Whether it were not better to express the matter by saying that God has promised to the obedient all good things, rather than to say that He has promised them to obedience. This I suggest the more especially, if that be a truth, that God’s promises under the covenant of grace are not made to the work, but to the worker; not to the action, but to the person performing it. I am sure that our divines have drawn this one great difference between the covenants of work and of grace, that in the covenant of works made with Adam, the promise was made to the work, not to the person; whereas in the covenant of grace, the promise is made to the person, not to the work. The two things I query are these:

If ‘good things’ is taken at large and indefinitely, the first part of the Objection is granted; that God has promised to the obedient, or to the obedient in their obedience, all good things. It is His promise as given in Psalms 84:11 : ‘No good thing will he withhold from them that walk uprightly’. Nay, we have His covenant, in Jeremiah 32:40 : ‘I will never depart from them to do them good’. But if it is decided that ‘good things’ only refers to those things which are positively good, those things which the world esteems good, and does not include wants as well as enjoyments, straits as well as fulness, poverty as well as prosperity, as among the ‘good things’, then I say that God has made no such promise to the Christian, nor can we truly interpret the promise after this fashion. If it were a promise made to obedience and godliness, and if it were to be interpreted in this way, then surely the apostles themselves would have been sharers in it. But Christ tells them plainly ‘that they should be hated of all men for his name’s sake, and should be brought before princes, cast into prison, and persecuted’, and that those who did such things to them would think that they did God good service (Matthew 10:18; Matthew 10:22; Luke 12:11; John 16:2). And the apostle tells us: The Holy Ghost witnesseth… that bonds and afflictions abide me’ (Acts 20:23). He adds:’If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable’ (1 Corinthians 15:19). And these things we too are to expect and reckon on, according to the saying of the apostle: ‘All that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution’ (2 Timothy 3:12). Also, ‘Through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God’ (Acts 14:22). Christ Himself tells us that if we will follow Him, we must take up our cross daily (Luke 9:23). Therefore it is certain that if by ‘the promise of this life’, is meant the good things of this life, and if by the good things of this life is meant outward enjoyments, then I say, there is no such promise made here to obedience. But it may be asserted that the Scripture says, ‘If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land’, and therefore temporal blessings are promised in return for obedience. I reply: If it be admitted that the Jews (though under the covenant of grace) were at the same time under a different covenant from us, a subservient covenant as I have already showed, in which God promised outward mercies to obedience and threatened afflictions to the disobedient, then my answer is soon made. David might well say that he never saw the righteous forsaken, nor their seed begging bread, for outward mercies were the conditions annexed to their obedience and to God’s part in the covenant, and these failed not to them that obeyed. But whatever it was then, it is not so now. Those who are willing and obedient do not now eat the good of the land. Indeed, it may be that they are in the greatest outward trouble and necessity, whereas they who do wickedly prosper. Where is it that God has made the promise of temporal good now under the Gospel? If so, why is it not universal and infallible in its application? Why do not those who are willing and obedient enjoy it, and not only some, but all of them? For promises are not made to particular persons, but to the whole body of Christ. Indeed, God tells us now that they that will live godly must suffer persecution, and through many tribulations must they enter into the kingdom of God. Yet this remains firm in all conditions, that God will never depart from us or from doing us good. He will never leave us nor forsake us. In blessing He will bless us. All things shall work together for the good of them that love God. This stands firm and immoveable to all saints. Heaven and earth shall sooner pass away than one tittle of this promise fail. But another objection may be raised. It may be said that, if blessings are not promised to obedience, and if God does not reward obedience, then by the rule of contraries, punishments are not threatened against sin, neither does God punish for sin. I answer briefly: God may punish sin, and yet not reward obedience. In our obedience, even if it were perfect, we do but what we should do, as Christ hints to us in Luke 17:10 : ‘When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say. We are unprofitable servants; we have but done that which was our duty to do.’ But when we sin we do that which we should not do; and therefore may God punish the one, and yet not reward the other. The punishment of our sin is but the just demerit of our evil; but the reward of our obedience is the gift of His own mercy. The apostle tells us this when he says: ‘The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord’ (Romans 6:23). Man may provoke God to show His justice, but he cannot tempt God to show mercy. Our sins draw out His justice, but His mercy is the issue of His own heart. We can do that for which God may damn us, but we cannot do that for which He may save us. Thus it will appear that, though the two parts of the argument taken separately may be granted to be true, yet the conclusion that is drawn from the linking of them together lies open to just exception. But again, it is granted that blessings are promised to obedience, and that punishments are threatened to sin. But shall we judge nothing to have the nature of blessing but the enjoyment of temporal and outward good things? May not losses be blessings as well as enjoyments? And may not enjoyments be punishments, when yet losses are blessings? Certainly they may be so in truth, though not in name. They may be so in God’s intention, though not in our apprehension. And to speak truth, nothing is against us but what is an obstacle to our eternal happiness, and nothing is for us but what is advantageous to it.

Once more: It is granted that God rewards obedience and punishes sin. But it is one thing for God to reward obedience, and another thing for man to have an eye to reward in his obeying. It is granted that reward is the outcome of the work, but it is disputed whether it should be the end which the worker has in view, and upon the considerations propounded. And though God rewards obedience and punishes sin, yet, just as we do not avoid sin because of temporal punishment, so we do not perform duty for the sake of reward. I say ‘reward’, in the sense of temporal enjoyments. I am unwilling for anything to be introduced as a motive for the obedience of a godly man which is either unsuitable, too low, or uncertain, and temporal rewards seems to be such. They are unsuited to the spirit which underlies the godly man’s service, and they have the nature of uncertainty, for we have no absolute promise of them. If there be such a promise, why is it not both universal and infallible? This much must serve for answer to the first part of the objection.

We now come to the second part, which is inferred from the first: that if God has promised all good things to obedience, then we may obey with a regard to the enjoyment of them. I answer by way of denial of this consequence, for, even if it be admitted that God has promised all good things (the ‘good things’ to be interpreted as before) to obedience, yet it does not follow that the godly are to obey God with a regard to the enjoyment of them. Even if we grant that the apostle, where he speaks of ‘godliness’ (as being profitable for this life) means ‘obedience’, or godliness in practice, and by ‘the things of this life’ he means ‘all good things’, and these were things positively good, yet we must not obey that the promise may be fulfilled to us. Rather, having this promise, we must be quickened to obey. Certainly the apostle’s reasoning is the best reasoning; and he reasons thus: ‘Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and the spirit’ (2 Corinthians 7:1). He does not bid the godly do this that they may have such promises; but, as they have such promises, let them obey. Let it not be thought that I would hold the believer back from obedience, or take away an incentive to obedience, or speak against that which would quicken him to obey. But this I say, that the promise of temporal good things, such as riches and prosperity, does not belong to the believer under the Gospel; in its place is mercy and blessing. Furthermore, I conceive that it is a far greater advantage to obedience, and a far greater spur and incentive to obedience, to consider the promise as already made, so that we are not to obey that we may have the promise, but, having the promise (and in 2 Corinthians 7:1 the apostle speaks of ‘the promises’), how much more should We obey it! To the further objection that, though we are not to obey that we may have the promise, but that we should obey with a view to receiving the good things included in the promise, I would reply thus: The things of this life are no part, not so much as a pin, of the workmanship of a gracious soul. They are too low to move one wheel of a Christian’s frame. At best they are but oil to the wheel, and oil is not the source of motion, but merely a help in motion. The things of this world can neither be the reason nor the object of the obedience of a gracious heart. They neither set us to work, nor do they keep us working. The enjoyment of them may come in to quicken us to work, and in work; but that is all. ‘If thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light’ (Matthew 6:22). Likewise the contrary is true. If the eye is double, if our aims and ends take the place of God, the whole man is darkness. In brief, the less respect we have to temporal blessings in our obedience, the more free and noble is our obedience. It is as one says of desire: ‘He that desires this on account of that, does not desire this, but that.’ So it is with him that obeys in the hope and expectation of receiving outward blessings: either he would not obey, or he would not so cheerfully obey, if there were no such good things to be enjoyed. But some may say that the godly may pray for these outward blessings, and therefore they may perform duty in respect of them. I answer: it does not so follow. The requirements of our duty and the reasons for the performance of our duty are different matters. We grant that outward things may be requested by us in our prayers, but they do not constitute the true ground of our praying. Besides, we must distinguish between that which is the true motive of our Christian life as a whole, and that which may constitute the motive and end of a particular duty. The latter may be prompted by the hope of outward and earthly good. Thus we may lawfully go to prayer for this end, to make known to the Lord our temporal necessities. Nay, our present wants may be the main and particular ground for performing a particular duty at a certain time. But no hope of worldly and outward blessing can be the hinge upon which the whole frame of our Christian life moves. Outward blessings may be the ground of particular acts, but not the main-spring of the whole. They may be the particular end of a particular duty, but not the general end of the whole course of our obedience. This must suffice for the first branch of our query: whether a man may not obey God in reference to God’s bestowing of outward mercies and enjoyments here and now. In a word, it seems more agreeable to the Gospel, and to the frame of a Christian soul, to say that we ought to obey God upon the knowledge, the belief, and the persuasion that God will bless us and that He will withhold no good thing from us, than to say that we are to obey God that we may gain good temporal things by our obedience. I shall prosecute this matter no further. If, in that which I have written, I have differed from others, it is not in disrespect to others whose judgments I respect, and I hope they will make allowance for me if I have dissented from their opinions on reasonable grounds. With reference to spiritual benefits We now proceed to the second main branch of the query propounded:

Whether we are to do duties with reference and respect to the obtaining of spiritual good things. Some divines say that we are not to suggest any respects or ends at all in the doing of duty. They not only exclude base ends, carnal purposes, and secular advantages, but they exclude also the highest and noblest ends. They tell us plainly that we are not to humble ourselves, fast, and pray, for the prevention of any evil, or the procuring of any good. Nay, they go yet higher and say that we are not to do duty with respect to the obtaining of any spiritual good, such as pardon, peace, joy, assurance, the light of God’s countenance, the subduing of lusts, and all else. In so saying, such men propound an irrational opinion which strips men of their reason (for if you take away the end which every reasonable creature, as a reasonable creature, proposes to himself in his actions, you bring man down to the level of the beasts). Yet such men, that they may seem to be reasonable in their paradox, give us two grounds for it:

These are the two reasons on which (may I say it without offence?) this unreasonable and destructive opinion seems to be founded.

Certainly I need not say much against this opinion, for if it be but twice repeated, it will be as good as a confutation of it. Indeed, if this opinion be a truth, we must have another Bible to countenance it. What do we read of more frequently than this: ‘Call upon me in the day of trouble, and I will deliver thee’ (Psalms 50:15); ‘Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you’ (Luke 11:9)? Does not the apostle desire them to pray for him? and for what end? He tells them

• ‘that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the Gospel’ (Ephesians 6:19). Does he not ask another church to pray that he may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men? (2 Thessalonians 3:2). Does not James bid us, if we be sick, to send for the elders of the church:and why? To pray for us. And why pray? That we may be healed! ‘Pray for one another, that ye may be healed’ (James 5:16).

But I am weary of this contention. In almost every place in Scripture where a duty is commanded, there is an end propounded. And what can be more destructive to grace and to reason than such an opinion? It would be no more absurd to reason, to say that we must not eat to satisfy our hunger, drink to satisfy our thirst, feed to nourish ourselves, but that We are to feed out of mere instinct, as do the beasts, not from reasonable motives as men. But what? are we to do duty for no reason at all? May we not confess sin that we may be humbled and made sensible of it? May we not hear the Word that our understandings may be bettered, our affections quickened, our faith strengthened? Surely the objectors propound these ends in their own preaching, otherwise why do they go to so much pains to persuade (I do not say convince) men’s understandings that they are in error? And may we not use ordinances for the increase of our graces, and for the abatement and weakening of our corruptions? And may we not do works of charity to refresh the poor? May we not relieve those who are in extremities? And are not these ends? And is it not the same with other duties? But if all this should be denied, yet this much will be agreed, we hope, that we may do duty and walk in the ways of obedience, to adorn our profession, to dignify the Gospel, to glorify God, to benefit the saints, and to win others. And are not these ends? And were not these as much purchased by Christ, and provided for by God, as the other? Sure it is that, much as we have need of God, so much the more has God no need of us. His glory, His Gospel, His cause does not depend upon us. God could advance this, and maintain the other, without us. And therefore, how little of men, how little of God, how little of reason, how little of Scripture there is in such a tenet, I leave to all to judge. But yet, that their show of reason may not go without an answer, I shall say one further word to them. It is this: Although Christ has purchased all good things for us, yet it pleased God to bestow them in a way of seeking. We see this in Ezekiel 36:37 (which follows upon the most free and absolute promises): ‘I will yet for this be inquired of by the house of Israel, to do it for them’. God promised to bestow the blessings, and promised (like Himself) to grant all freely without any respect to man’s deserts, as He tells them in Ezekiel 36:32, Not for your sakes do I this, saith the Lord God, be it known unto you’. No! It was for His own Name’s sake. And yet He tells them in the words just quoted: ‘I will yet for this be enquired of by the house of Israel to do it for them’. All this plainly shows that, though God had promised, and promised freely, to bestow these things on them, yet He would bestow them in a way of seeking.

We say yet again, that though God will bestow good things in a way of believing and praying, yet they are not the purchase of our prayers, but the gift of His own mercy. And I appeal to all, whether they have ever heard any conscientious minister of the Gospel to say that prayer was the meriting cause of any mercy? Did ever any say that duty came in as an influential cause for the granting of any mercy? Has it not always been shown as a subservient means, not as a procuring cause, of any mercy from God? When God has a purpose to give, He stirs up the heart to seek, and this stirring up of the heart to seek is an evidence that He has a purpose to bestow. He loves to bestow His mercy in a way of seeking, that we may be encouraged to come to Him, and to regard our blessings as the fruits of prayer and the performance by God of His promises to us. But perhaps it will be said: If these blessings are freely promised, why is there a condition attached to the bestowing of them? I answer thus: Some there are that say that, though God’s promises are free in respect of the making of them, yet they are conditional in respect of the performance of them. Though they are made from sheer mercy, yet God fulfils them in relation to the performance of our subservient duty. If we do but add to this the truth that the subservient condition or duty which is prerequisite to the performance of the promise, is nothing of our bringing but first of God’s bestowing, I do not see how this statement in any way detracts from the freedom of God’s grace either in the making or the performing of the promise. To take an instance: God tells us that He will give to him that is athirst (Revelation 21:6). Here is a condition or qualification. Yet this does not take away from the freeness of grace. Notwithstanding this qualification, God tells us that He gives to him that is athirst, and what can be freer than a gift? As has been said, God gives both the grace of desiring, and the grace desired. ‘Gift’ implies freeness of grace. But some may still object and say that it cannot be a gift if God requires thirst. This qualification, they say, implies it to be no gift of grace. To set this aside, God has been pleased to add to the former word ‘gift’ this other word ‘freely’. T will give to him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.’ Thus it is clear that grace is found here in all its plenitude. That which God requires as subservient to the promise is not of our bringing, till first of God’s bestowing; not of our purchasing, but of God’s giving. God has engaged Himself by covenant, not only to give the promise, but to give also whatever is required as necessary and subservient to the promise. If indeed there had been anything required which was of our bringing and which was not first of all of God’s bestowing, it would have gone contrary to grace and would have altered the nature of the thing. It would have made that to be man’s by purchase which was of God’s gift, even though what we brought bore no proportion to that which God gave. If so much as one penny is required of us for the purchase of a kingdom, though this falls infinitely short of the true worth of the kingdom, yet this alters the nature of the thing, and makes that a purchase which without that would be a gift. So here. If any thing is required of us which is not of God’s giving and bestowing, though the thing required of us were never so small, yet it would alter the nature of the gift and make grace to be no grace. But when that which is of our bringing is truly of God’s bestowing and giving, the nature of the gift remains, and there is no infringement upon the freeness of grace. If God requires faith in a man to close with the promise, and gives him the faith to close with the promise, certainly this is no prejudice to grace. The prophet Isaiah says: ‘In the Lord have I righteousness and strength’ (Isaiah 45:24) - righteousness to those that believe on Him, and strength to enable them to come to Him. As the sea sends out waters to fetch us to it, so God sends out strength from Himself to draw us to Himself. And so all is of grace, which can no way be grace, if it be not every way truly grace. And if promises of grace, though absolute and free in themselves, yet are conditional in respect of their fulfilment, much more may I say this of promises of comfort, peace, and joy. If this were but acknowledged, men certainly would not run upon these rocks, that a believer immediately following upon an act of sin, may take comfort and hear God speaking peace in the promise. It is claimed that he may then hear all the gracious language of heaven, as though he had not sinned. It is the failure of men to see that, in a certain way, promises are conditional, that inevitably carries men on such rocks as these. Yet I say, and say again, that these promises are conditional in respect of their fulfilment, whatever they are in their own nature. It is for this reason that we do duties as subservient means for the bringing about of their fulfilment. Not that duty is the cause of their fulfilment, or that it has any causal influence leading to fulfilment, but that it is the subservient means for the obtaining of the things which God has freely promised. God has promised these things to His people, and this is the way in which He will fulfil them, as he tells us: ‘He meeteth him that rejoiceth and worketh righteousness ’ (Isaiah 64:5). And again: to him, that ordereth his conversation aright will I show the salvation of God’ (Psalms 50:23). And again: ‘As many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them’ (Galatians 6:16). Thus we see that the way in which God performs these promises is in a way of duty and obedience. And therefore may we do duty with respect to the enjoyment of the promises. But there is a further objection which must be answered. Some men will say that that which is the fruit of grace and justification cannot be a condition preceding grace and justification; but to perform duty acceptably is a consequence of our justification and the work of grace in us; it cannot therefore be said to be a precedent condition.

All our learned and holy writers, speaking against the Papists in their treatises against justification by works, are agreed that the acceptable performance of duty by the godly is a fruit of their justification. For instance, Augustine says, ‘Good works follow justification; they do not precede justification’; and again he says, ‘While we see good works wrought by men, we see faith wrought in men.’ Among other arguments against the Papists, this appears. If we are justified before we can work, then We are not justified by our works. But We are so justified; therefore we cannot be justified by our works. That we are justified before we can work, the Scripture sets forth plainly. It tells us that without Christ We can do nothing, and that We are created in Christ Jesus unto good works (Ephesians 2:10): that in ourselves we are but dead men, that all our life is from Christ, and that we can have no life from Christ until we have union with him: for ‘he that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life’(1 John 5:12). And as soon as there is life and union there is justification, for the gift of life and the justification are simultaneous, though in order of nature one may be conceived before the other. It has been rightly said: let us work from justification, not for justification. ‘

It will be said, however, that if this argument is true which we thus oppose to the teachings of the Papists, that We must not work that we may be justified, but must be justified that we may work, then the performance of duties cannot be said to be the preceding condition for receiving blessing, seeing that the blessings are the subsequent fruits of grace and justification. Thus have I raised this objection to the utmost height I can, and presented it in the best light. And at this height I had thought to have dealt with it. But I find that it leads into many intricate questions which are fitter for discussion in a separate treatise rather than dealt with here. But if better and more able hands do not undertake it (it is my earnest desire that they may), then possibly God may afford opportunity to me, one who is the most unworthy of those that labour in the Gospel, to speak something on such a subject as this. In the meantime I shall propound a few things for serious and thorough consideration:

First, Is it not possible that the conditions for blessing which have been considered are both conditions that precede blessing and also the subsequent fruits of grace? This will especially appear if we look upon them as conditions of God’s bestowing before anything of ourselves enters into them so as to make them appear to be qualifications for grace. May they not be qualifications which we receive from grace, and indeed grace in themselves, presupposing the existence of faith?

Secondly, We should inquire whether it is possible to draw good and safe distinctions between the qualifications in or by which a soul comes to Christ (namely, a sense of need, hunger and thirst, and spiritual poverty: Matthew 11:28; Matthew 5:3-6) and the qualification, namely faith, which actually brings the soul to Christ. And is it possible to call the first the qualifications of grace, and the second the qualifications to grace, especially if it be admitted that these qualifications to grace are not of man, though in man?

Thirdly, Let us inquire whether there are not some works in preparation for grace which may be said to be from the Spirit but yet are not with the Spirit; that is, which proceed from the Spirit of sanctification, and yet they are not wit h the sanctifying Spirit: even as the light of the morning is from the sun, yet not with the sun.

Fourthly, We should inquire whether it is or is not true that Christ comes not to us before He comes into us. Have we some kind of life from Christ before we come to live in Christ or Christ comes to live in us?

Fifthly, We should inquire whether we may rightly draw distinctions between active and passive preparations for receiving life in Christ. May we rightly understand as ‘passive’ preparations the emptying us of sin and self by the Spirit of God? and as ‘active’ preparations the begetting in us of desires and hungerings and thirstings after Christ by the same Spirit? And do both kinds of preparation presuppose the existence of faith and of Christ in the soul? Has Christ entered the soul, as light enters into a dark room, dispelling rather than expelling the darkness, driving out the darkness by His entrance rather than throwing out darkness before He enters?

Sixthly, We should also consider whether certain learned men, in speaking of the passive and active reception of Christ by the soul, have thereby drawn a safe distinction; also whether in the one case the soul receives Christ as a dead man receives life, in the other, as a living man receives food; also whether the one may be called the soul’s interest in Christ and the other the manifestation of that interest. If these things are so, it may further be considered whether many of those things which are said to be preparations for the reception of Christ by the soul do not actually presuppose Christ to be already in us, and do not precede the soul’s interest in Him, though they do precede the manifestation of that interest.

Seventhly, It is to be considered whether the order of God’s working may not differ from that which is to be our order of preaching, and whether we should not make some use of the distinction between God’s ordinary and His extraordinary methods of working in the hearts and lives of men. Eighthly, It is worthy of consideration whether, for the same reason that all preparations (the preceding work and acts of God in the soul of man, for example, conviction of sin and the revelation of Christ) leading to justification are denied, the fact that faith itself precedes justification may be denied also. For if so, then certainly both ‘faith’ and ‘justification’ will have to be taken in another sense than Scripture seems to give them, and long usage has accorded them.

Therefore it would be also worth our pains to give some thought to the determination of the true nature of faith and justification, and also to ask ourselves what is the nature of faith. Is faith actually and truly the instrument of justification, or only the evidence that we are justified? Does faith truly give us an interest in Christ, or does it merely give us the manifestation that we have such an interest? Certain other questions will help us in this inquiry, as, for example, whether the faith which justifies a man is an act of recumbency, that is to say, a resting on Christ for the soul’s interest, or whether it is rather a persuasion and assurance that the soul already has an interest in Him. Certain Scriptures which bear on this subject should be well weighed, chiefly Romans 3:28 : ‘We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law’, and Romans 5:1 : Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ’. As for justification itself, such considerations would show whether it is an act of God entirely external to the person justified, or whether it is His immanent act; whether it is an act of God in time, or whether that which is done in time is improperly called justification, but is merely the manifestation to a man of what God has done for him from all eternity. As for those who are of the latter opinion, they should inquire whether, for the elucidation of this truth, it might not be admitted that a distinction should be drawn between the several stages of justification. Thus we may be said to be justified in God’s decree, in which sense we are justified from eternity. Again, we are justified meritoriously in the death of Christ who laid down at His death the full price for the payment of our debt. Again, it may be said that we are actually justified when we come to believe. And once more, we are justified in the court of our own conscience, and thus justified to ourselves, when we come to assurance. And there is one further stage: We are perfectly justified when We are glorified, that is, when Christ shall present His spouse without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, when the church shall be all fair and without spot or sin. If these things are not admitted, the order observed in Scripture will seem to be inverted, and we shall run from God’s revealed will to God’s secret will. Yea, and a man may stand actually justified according to this opinion, while he stands truly and actually under the power, the reign, and the rage of Satan and sin.

These things I have brought forward with the suggestion that they need consideration. It was from such considerations that I had intended to answer the various objections to my doctrine. But I find that they demand (as I have already intimated) a separate treatise from me, unless better hands than mine (as I desire) engage in the work. For the present, I say no more than this, that those dispositions and qualifications which are prerequisites to blessing, in no way rob God’s grace of its freeness, for they are themselves the results of His grace. They are of God’s bestowing, not of our purchasing; they are not of our bringing, apart from God’s first giving. We say that no qualifications on man’s part from man are required, though there is something required on man’s part from God. Do those who deny the need for preparation in the heart of man for the receiving of Christ also deny the necessity of the means of grace to those not yet brought to Christ?

If preparations in man’s heart are not necessary, then the means of grace are not necessary to such men. But the means of grace are necessary. It is said that faith comes by hearing (Romans 10:17), and, if the means are not necessary, then men may believe and be justified before ever they have heard of Christ. Yet I know that this consequence of the error will be denied.

Consider this: If by the means of grace God prepares the soul for coming to Christ, then take away the need for preparations for coming to Christ, and you take away the necessity for the means of grace. But it is certain that, by the means of grace, God prepares men for coming to Christ. By these means of grace He reveals to men their state of misery; through them he causes them to see their sinfulness and need of Christ. In them He shows how Christ and the promises meet their need, and kindle in their souls a desire and thirst after Him and earnest longings for Him. This is to them the morning of grace, the dawnings of faith and conversion, and as such they are the harbingers of Christ.

It is said of John the Baptist, who was the ‘prodromus’ (forerunner or harbinger) of Christ, both of His coming into the world and also into the heart, that he was to make ready, or prepare, a people for the Lord (Luke 1:17). How did he do this but by his ministry? Christ will have some one to go before Him to prepare for His entrance. It is said of the seventy disciples whom Christ sent out to preach, that He sent them ‘to every city and place whither he himself would come’. And wherefore did He send them before Him, but to prepare men’s hearts for the receiving of Christ when the Sent One actually came to them. This is seen in the text which He gave the seventy to preach from: ‘Go and say unto them, the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you’ (Luke 10:9). It is with Christ in His entrance into the soul as it is with a prince’s coming to a place. The prince has his harbingers who go before him, his court or such as go with him, and his attendants, or such as are his followers and come after him. It is so with Christ. The harbingers of Christ are those preparatory workings - conviction of sin, the hearing of Christ and the promises, the earnest longings, the thirsting and the seeking after Him. Christ’s court consists of all the graces of His Spirit which He works in His first entrance into the soul. And His attendants or followers are the peace that passes all understanding (Php 4:7), and the joy which is unspeakable and glorious in the Holy Ghost (1 Peter 1:8). It is possible for Christ to enter the house before His followers come in. There may be faith without assurance and grace without joy. There can be no true joy without grace, but there may be true grace without joy. But I will proceed no further with this theme. This must suffice for the second branch of this query. With reference to eternal rewards The third and last query runs thus: Whether we may obey and do duty to God with respect to eternal rewards. Those who deny this, do so upon two grounds. Some say that Christ has purchased, and God has fully provided Heaven and glory for us. Therefore we are not to have any respect to it in our obedience.

I agree that we are not to have respect to the purchasing of eternal rewards by our obedience, but we may have respect to the possession of them in our obedience. We may have respect to the enjoyment of them in our obedience, though not to the obtaining of them by our obedience. To have an eye to our enjoyment of the rewards in our obedience is one thing, and to have an eye to the obtaining of it by our obedience is quite another. Certainly, those who preach obedience and holiness do not preach them as the cause, but as the way. They tell us of the necessity for them, not in regard to the claims of justice but in respect of God’s requirement that we must be made meet for the inheritance of the saints in light (Colossians 1:12). As Bernard says: ‘Good works are the way to the reward, not the cause of the reward.’

Good works are necessary, not in respect of causality, but in respect of God’s order and means and ordination. ‘He hath called us to virtue and glory’, says the apostle (2 Peter 1:3) - to virtue as the preparation, to glory as the fruition. In respect of God’s requirements here and now, we say that works of righteousness and holiness must be forthcoming, for certainly God makes none happy hereafter but those whom He makes holy here. He brings none to glory but those in whom He works grace., He gives grace and glory’ (Psalms 84:11). He brings heaven into the soul before He brings the soul to heaven. But if it be claimed that good works are to satisfy justice and to win Heaven and glory for us, we cry them down, and say with the apostle: ‘Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us’ (Titus 3:5). Let this saying be ever in your ears: Do all righteousness, but learn to rest in none; be in duty in respect of performance, but out of duty and in Christ in respect of dependence. This will suffice for answer to those who deny duty with respect to reward for the first of the reasons stated.

There are other persons who deny that we are to have respect to these eternal rewards in our obedience, but it is upon another ground. They assert that it savours not of an ingenuous Gospel spirit, but rather of a mercenary and servile spirit They say we are to serve God even were there no heaven, no hell, no rewards, no punishments. To illustrate this, I mention the alleged story of a woman who carried fire in one hand and water in the other. Another met her who inquired what she intended to do with her two burdens. She answered: With this water I will quench all the fires of hell, and with this fire I will burn up all the joys of heaven, that I may serve God neither for fear of punishment nor for hope of reward, but purely and solely for Himself. She showed good affections, but it will appear in what I have further to say that she lacked clear perceptions of Heaven and glory. If she had conceived of that glory aright, she would not have spoken after this fashion; for there is nothing in Heaven that a glorified soul needs to part with; there is nothing there which needs to be burned up; there is nothing there but God in grace and glory, as I shall explain shortly.

There is another opinion which some express, which is that a godly man may perform duties and walk in the way of obedience with a respect to the recompense of the reward. But this opinion is so modified, so tempered and allayed, that it is a wonder that any should take offence at it. It suggests that, though we may have respect to Heaven and glory and our salvation, yet these must not be the supreme and primary respects, but only secondary and inferior. Also, they must not be held singly and solely, but conjunctively and jointly with God’s glory; not absolutely, but subordinately to that glory.

It is the saying of a former saint: ‘Not Heaven, O Lord, but God and Christ. Rather ten thousand times Christ without Heaven, than Heaven without Christ. But seeing that Thou hast joined them together, so that I cannot enjoy one without the other, then give me both, O Lord; but not Christ for Heaven, but Heaven, O Lord, for Christ.’ And Augustine has said: ‘He loves Thee not, O Lord, who loves something before Thee, which he loves not on account of Thee.’

It is certainly true that Heaven and glory are not to be either the sole or the supreme grounds and ends of our obedience, though we look to them to enliven us in our way and in our movements. They are not to be the reason for our moving. We should regard them as refreshments in the way, but not as the reason why we undertake our journey. The apostle’s expression may serve to indicate this to us: ‘He had respect to the recompense of the reward’ (Hebrews 11:26). The Greek is not ‘blepo’ (to look), but ‘apoblepo’ (to look from or out from). He ‘cast an eye’ when he was on his journey, to cheer him in his way and give him encouragement, lest he should think of the great things he had refused and lest the flesh should begin to tell him that he had made a hard bargain. For this reason he steals a look from glory; he turns to his cordial; he casts an eye to the recompense of the reward. By this means he renews his strength and gets new and fresh encouragement to continue his journey. He does not make this a reason why he undertakes the journey, but only a means of quickening him in his way. It is not the mainspring of his motion, but the oil to the wheels so that he may move the more cheerfully.

Some there are who distinguish between young beginners and grown Christians. At the first entrance of the soul into the ways of grace, they say, a man looks upon heaven and hell, the one to drive him out of sin, the other to persuade and draw him into the ways of holiness. But when once a soul has truly entered upon the ways of life, he finds so much sweetness in God and His ways, that now he serves God with a more free and ingenuous spirit. As the Samaritans said,, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world’ (John 4:41-42). In a similar way it is said, ‘Now we serve Thee, not for fear of punishment, nor for hope of reward, but because we see such beauty in Thyself, such sweetness in Thy ways, that if there were no other heaven, then this were heaven enough.’ The case of the prodigal seems to support this argument (Luke 15:1-32). When first he was awakened and convinced of his sin and misery, he said, ‘I will arise and go to my father, and say unto him. Father, I have sinned against heaven and in thy sight and am no more worthy to be called thy son; make me as one of thy hired servants.’ He desired to be a hired servant. But later, when he came to his father, and saw his mercy and indulgence, how he ran to meet him and embraced him, he ceases to talk of being a hired servant. He was now overcome with love, and therefore he only remembers the wickedness he has done, and abhors himself for it, saying, Father, I have sinned against heaven and before thee’. He mentions hired servants no more.

Thus, too it is with the soul of the believer. When he is first awakened to see sin, and misery by sin, he says, ‘O make me as one of thy hired servants.’ Fear of hell and desire of heaven are his two great springs of action. But when once the man comes over to Christ and the promise, when once he has tasted of God’s mercy in pardoning him and God’s goodness in receiving him, then he falls down and abhors himself, as it is said happened to those upon whom God settled the promises (see Ezekiel 36:31). And now all he desires is to serve God for Himself. He sees so much beauty in Him, He has tasted so much mercy shown by Him, that if he had the strength of an angel, it were all too little to be laid out for Him. Nothing that is his - the blood in his veins, the life that surges through his limbs, his soul, his spirit - is too dear to be spared from His service. The only question now is, not, what will God give me? but, what can I give God? What shall I render to the Lord for all His goodness ? The man is willing to go through a sea and through a wilderness, through any difficulties and any duties. All that he can do falls infinitely short of what his heart and good will would render to God. All his expressions fall short of his enlarged affections. And though God should do no more for him, yet his heart burns with such affection for God that he counts all he can do for Him but a small part of that which he would wish to do. In answer then to this third part of our query as to whether a Christian man may not do duty with an eye to the recompense of the reward, that is, with an eye to Heaven and glory, I answer affirmatively, and in opposition to the contrary opinion, I shall state and prove the two following propositions: (1) that we may obey God with respect to heaven and glory, (2) that we ought to have respect to heaven and glory in our obedience. I shall endeavour to establish these two propositions, though not upon the grounds on which the lawfulness of eyeing rewards in our obedience is usually based. I shall labour to establish it on such spiritual and true grounds as shall show wherein I differ from the arguments directed against it in the previous part of our inquiry.

Proposition i: That it is lawful for Christians to obey God with respect to eternal rewards - heaven and glory In looking into this question I find that those who have maintained the contrary opinion have based that opinion upon false conceptions of heaven and glory. Their thoughts about heaven have been too low and too carnal by far. Probably these low thoughts have arisen from the consideration that they must have no eye to heaven in their obedience. I have already dealt with the meaning of ‘eyeing the reward’, so can at once proceed to explain what is truly meant by heaven and glory.

If we take away or separate that from Heaven which a carnal heart conceives to be heaven, then that which remains is heaven to a godly man. Carnal men fancy heaven under carnal notions. They look upon it as a place where there is freedom from all misery, and where there is a fulness of all pleasures and happiness. But both these - the pleasures and the happiness, the freedom and enjoyment - they fancy in a way which complies with the carnality of their natural hearts. This indeed is a Turkish heaven, but it is not a Christian’s heaven. Certainly we have heaven described in sumptuous terms in the Scriptures (Revelation 21:18-19). The walls are of jasper, the city is pure gold, the foundations are garnished with all kinds of precious stones, the first foundation is of jasper… and the twelve gates are twelve pearls. Thus is God pleased to pencil it out, as if He would tempt a worldling, and even corrupt sense itself which shall never come there, to seek the enjoyment of it.

It must be well understood that this is spoken by way of metaphor, because the glory of heaven cannot be pencilled out as it really is. Therefore God descends to our weakness and even to sense itself, and describes heaven and glory by such things as are known to men to be precious. Not that we are to conceive that heaven is any such thing, or that there is any such thing in heaven. If a man thinks so, I shall spoil his heaven before I have done.

God has no need to be indebted to stones, even precious stones, to make heaven glorious any more than the sun has any need to be indebted to the stars to make the day. God Himself fills heaven with glory and makes it infinitely glorious. God in heaven is the glory of heaven. For what purpose are such poor beggarly things of the senses needed in heaven by those who are all spirit and glory? These things are below the spirit of a godly man while he is in the earth. He has a more noble spirit than to set much value on them here. He can trample on gold and silver, pearls and diamonds. And if his spirit is above these things here, what are these to him in heaven? If these are below him while he is here below, what are they then when he gets above? These are but beggarly glory compared with the meanest glory in heaven. Everywhere a Christian turns his eyes in Heaven will reveal a far greater glory than these are. Every glorified soul shall be more glorious than the sun in its glory. Alas, what are precious stones but mere pebble stones as compared to the glory of a glorified saint!

I conceive, then, that by eternal rewards is meant whatever ought to be the utmost of the desire of a renewed and sanctified soul. Certain other writers have written about this matter excellently, so that I need not enlarge further. It is, in brief, the fruition and enjoyment of God; the enjoyment of Christ, who is the Pearl of great price; the enjoyment of the Spirit, the true Comforter; it is the perfection and fulness of grace; it is an eternal Sabbath, a rest, a rest in Jehovah, in whom there is all rest. It is a rest after pilgrimage. All pantings after Him here below are now exchanged for rests in Him. He is the Christian’s centre, his proper place of rest. It is a glorious rest. Here rest and glory seldom meet; in Heaven they meet perfectly, and that for all eternity. Does it not then seem that a Christian may truly desire all this? May he not eye it all, and have respect to it all in his service and obedience? May we not desire and have regard to the enjoyment of God in our service? David could say, ‘Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee’ (Psalms 73:25). The enjoyment of God was the utmost of his desire in heaven, and it is recorded as the highest privilege a Christian can enjoy through Christ, to be brought by Him to God (1 Peter 3:18). And may we not take it into our consideration here below? Certainly the more respect we have to the enjoyment of God in our obedience, the more noble is our obedience. The more we give attention to the enjoyment of God while we are engaged in duty, the more noble are our spirits in duty. And in prayer and the doing of duty, may we not hope to get a little communion with God and Christ as we engage in them? Without such regard, our duties are not sound. And is it not right to serve God, and in that service to have respect to the full enjoyment and communion with Him which are known in heaven? To hold a contrary view of this matter is absurd. And may we not have regard to the enjoyment of Christ as we follow after God and Christ in the ways of holiness ? Not indeed that we may purchase Him by our obedience, but that we may journey to Him in our obedience; yea, and walk in ways of service with the hope that therein we may enjoy Him; not as the merit of our service, but as the purpose in our serving.

Further, may we not also desire the Spirit of God, who is the only Comforter? And may we not serve God with regard to the enjoyment of Him who comforts and sanctifies us? He is now in us, and hereafter we shall be in Him. This is the preoccupation of glory, even as it was experienced by John who said, ‘1 was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day’(Revelation 1:1 O). And may we not obey God and serve Him with respect to perfection and fulness of grace yet to come to us? If we serve Him here with an eye to the additions of grace which He sends us, may we not obey Him with respect to the fulness of grace yet to be bestowed? Is it right for us to pray now, to walk in the use of ordinances and in all the ways of duty, trusting that thereby we may get a little more grace, a little more faith, more love, more brokenness of heart? If so, how much more may we serve God and obey Him with respect to the fulness and perfection of grace in a coming day! This is that which we breathe after, and pray for, and hope for, even perfection and full satisfaction. ‘When I awake’, says David, T shall be satisfied with thy likeness ’ (Psalms 17:15). And certainly, that which is the saints’ satisfaction hereafter is the saints’ desire here. That which they breathe after in all their service as their satisfaction, may be respected and eyed here as our duty in all our service. If those duties are not well done in which we have not sought after communion with God and Christ, and also the growth of our grace, in the performance of them, then surely we not only may, but it is our duty to eye these things and to have respect to them in our service and obedience.

Further, may we not live in the hope of a perfect Sabbath while we are doing duty? What is it but a rest? Is not rest the end of all labour? Does not labour tend to rest? And is not this a rest, a rest from sin, a rest in God, a rest with praise an admiring and glorifying of God to all eternity? And may we not labour in the hope and expectation of reaching this rest? May we not do service with an eye to the obtaining of such a Sabbath? There shall we rest for ever, and never, never sin. We shall rest in service, we shall rest in God. ‘Even for this cause we labour and faint not (2 Corinthians 4:16).

Tell me now, after this little that has been said, whether we may not serve God with respect to eternal rewards? May not a Christian serve God with respect to these things? Nay, is he a Christian at all who does not have regard to these promised blessings in his service? Why, what is salvation, what is heaven, what is glory, but all this? I wonder what forethought a person has of heaven and what he thinks of glory and salvation, when he says that we are not to eye these things, nor to have respect to them in our obedience. Certainly he thinks of them under false notions. His thoughts are not God’s thoughts. He looks upon them as the world does, carnally, not spiritually. None will own that heaven as his happiness which he may not have respect to in his service; nay, which he does not make his ambition and his aim in his service. The apostle seems to imply as much as this in 2 Corinthians 4:18 : ‘We look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen’. This implies that we make the things which are not seen our ambition and aim. And if so, then certainly we may have respect to them. Let us be ashamed to imagine that to be heaven which a godly man may not be permitted to eye, and have respect to, in his obedience; nay, make his ambition and end in obeying; that is, not so much that heaven which comes to us from God, as that heaven which lies in God. If we speak of heaven in an abstract way, it is but a notion. This can never make a man happy. But if we speak of heaven as the place where we shall be with God and find our full salvation in God, then as heaven becomes our happiness so also it becomes our holiness. And to this we must have an eye in all our obedience. In this way poor Christians may overcome those doubts which are usually the results of a jealous misgiving spirit. But even so, there may be some Christians who labour under further difficulties. Ah, someone will say, I fear that my service is hypocritical and out of self-love, for I aim at myself. I do service with respect to Heaven and glory. I answer thus: We never read that God charged any believer with hypocrisy who had respect to the world to come. Indeed, He has charged those who have had respect to this present world, and to earthly things; as He said to the Israelites: ‘You have not fasted and prayed to me; you assembled together for corn and wine and oil’ (see Hosea 7:14). But He never charged any soul with double-mindedness who had an eye and respect to heaven and glory.

I say again, conceive of heaven under the right notion; get right thoughts of heaven; look upon heaven as I have set it forth; make that your Heaven which I have proved to be a Christian’s heaven, and then you may carry an eye and respect to it in all your obedience. Nay, the more eye and respect you have for heaven thus described, the more spiritual and heavenly you will be. In this you do not aim at pleasing your corrupt self, but aiding your best self; not yourself in opposition to God, or separated from God, but yourself in God. You lose yourself in Him, to find yourself in Him when you are swallowed up in His likeness. But some Christians are troubled by another scruple. They say, I fear that my desires are not true, for I do not desire grace for its own sake but grace for glory, grace for heaven. I answer as before: Conceive aright of heaven. Do not look upon it with a carnal eye, as a place of freedom from the miseries you feel and as a place of enjoyment of the happiness and pleasures you hope for. But look upon it as a place where you will have communion with God, enjoyment of Christ, perfection and fulness of grace, freedom from all sin and corruption and spiritual imperfection. Do this, and you do not sin in desiring grace for heaven. If you look upon grace and heaven as two different things, you may err in desiring grace for heaven. But if you look upon heaven as the fulness of grace, then you may desire grace for heaven. You may desire grace here as the beginning of heaven, as the earnest of glory, and as that which will entitle you to perfection and fulness of glory hereafter. In brief, then, he who desires grace merely for glory, and looks upon that glory as a thing quite different from grace, has desires which are not right. But you may desire grace with respect to heaven so long as you desire heaven with respect to grace. The more enlarged you are in such desires, the more gracious and spiritual are your principles. The position has been well summed up by one author in the words: ‘Sanctification is glory in the bud; glory is sanctification in the flower.’

Proposition 2: Christians not only may have but ought to have respect to heaven and glory in their obedience.

I come next to show that Christians not only may have, but ought to have, respect to heaven and glory in their obedience. It is not only ‘may’ but ‘must’. You may obey God with respect to heaven, but you must respect heaven in your obedience. It is that which God has urged upon us to fortify our hearts against the fear of earth’s troubles, and to bear up our hearts under the sense of any calamities. It is to be noticed that when Christ desired to arm His disciples against all the fears and evils they might encounter in this life, He draws the encouragement from the truth that God intends to give them a kingdom: ‘Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom’ (Luke 12:32). He brings the harbour into the sea, the rest into the labour, the glory into the trouble; and this encourages a soul to go through all. If we do not pay any respect to this source of encouragement, we slight the Lord’s own word. As it is a sin to slight the consolations of God (Job 15:11), so it is no less a sin to make light of the encouragements of God. God gives us these in order to help faith against sense, to furnish faith with arguments against the carnal reasonings of the flesh, and to strengthen us in the greatest straits and distresses the world can bring upon us. The saints have been helped thus in their fiercest battles. We have already seen how Moses was thus helped to suffer affliction with the people of God. Did he not look for the recompense of the reward? That glory and happiness to come, which was made real and visible to him in this present world, encouraged him to slight all the greatness of Egypt. It rendered all treasures of earth too little for his spirit, and his spirit too big to be daunted by the world’s discouragements.

It was the same with the apostle Paul. He was troubled on every side, but he laboured and he did not faint: wherefore? Because (as he said) ‘our light affliction which is but for a moment worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, while we look, not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen’ (2 Corinthians 4:17-18). We thus see where the apostle obtained his strength and encouragement to go through all his troubles and distresses. He looked above those things which are seen, and considered those things which are not seen. To be brief: would you walk thankfully and cheerfully? Would you be strong to do and to suffer? Would you submit to all God’s disposings? Would you rejoice in your sufferings? If you would do these things, you must have an eye for the recompense of the reward. I will speak briefly of each in turn. Would you walk thankfully? The right consideration of the matter will make us burst out into praises in our lowest conditions. Here is matter enough for praises. Hear the apostle as he bursts into praise: ‘Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope… to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefined and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you’ (1 Peter 1:3). Indeed such thoughts and considerations will fill us full of heaven and glory, and make us break forth into songs of thanksgiving for His great goodness :, Who hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light’ (Colossians 1:12). Would you walk cheerfully? Would you be filled with joy and comfort in the midst of all your sad conditions? Would you joy in tribulations? Then consider the things of the Heaven to which you are moving: They took joyfully the spoiling of their goods, knowing in themselves that they had in heaven a better and an enduring substance’ (Hebrews 10:34). 11 is reported of Caesar, that when he was sad, he used to say to himself. Think that thou art Caesar.’ If Caesar thought that his earthly greatness was enough to bear up his heart in any trouble, how much more should the consideration of the great things reserved for us cheer our hearts and comfort our spirits, no matter how sad our condition! He that lives much in the thoughts of heaven, lives much the life of heaven, that is to say, thankfully and cheerfully. The philosophers say that if men lived above the second region of the atmosphere they would live above all storms, for there is nothing found there but serenity and clearness. It is true of those souls who can live in heaven that they have rest in labour, calm amid storms, tranquillity in tempests, and comforts amidst their greatest distresses. Would you be strong to do the will of God? The same considerations will give you strength and encouragement. The apostle brings in this as an encouragement:, Whatsoever ye do, do it heartily… knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance’ (Colossians 3:23-24). Likewise, in 1 Corinthians 15:58 : ‘Be always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.’ You may read similar thoughts in 2 Peter 1:10-11; 2 Peter 3:14. Do you wish to be able to suffer and yet rejoice? The considerations of heaven and glory will so encourage you that you will be enabled to meet all trials. We see this in Moses, as I have already explained. We see it in the early believers, as we read in Hebrews, chapter 11. To which I might add many more. It is the man who eyes heaven and glory who is able to walk safely in all places. While Peter kept his eye upon Christ, he walked safely upon a stormy and tempestuous sea, but when he took his eye off Christ and looked upon the storminess of the sea, then he began to sink. While we have an eye upon eternals, we are able to walk on the most tempestuous sea, and to go through any storms and troubles; but if once We take our eye off Christ and Heaven, then the least trouble is more than we can bear. It was said by Basil: I care for nothing, visible or invisible, if I may but get Christ. Let fire, let the cross, let breaking of bones come, nay, let the torments of the devil come upon me, if only I can get Christ.’ Such a blessed enlargement of heart did the consideration of Christ and heaven put into him, that he was able to slight and condemn all the evils of the world. This much is certain, that he who considers the eternal weight of glory will not think the light afflictions, which are but for a moment, worthy to be compared to it. He that sees visions of glory will be like Stephen, who was able to endure a shower of stones. He that considers eternity as the goal to which he moves, does not dread to go through all the troubles of the way. Says Seneca, ‘He who keeps eternity in mind does not shrink from the arduousness of the way.’ Would you submit to all God’s disposings of your affairs? The considerations of heaven and glory will make the believer submit to any thing here. He can be content to be poor, for he knows he shall be rich; to be reproached, for he knows he shall be honoured; to be afflicted, for he knows he shall be comforted; to be imprisoned, for he knows he shall be brought into a large place; to sit at Dives’ door, for he knows he shall rest in Abraham’s bosom; to lose all, for he knows he shall find all hereafter. God will be all, and more than all, to him. He knows that the trials last but for a little season, a day, an hour, a moment, a small moment. Hereafter there are eternal embraces. He can submit to God to work His own work, and to work it in His own way, and after His own manner, if so be He will bring him to glory at last. And he can say, Welcome that sorrow that presages joy, that trouble that ends in comfort, those crosses that prepare for crownings, and that death which ushers in eternal life. And all this he can do by the consideration of the great and glorious things which God has reserved for him. Hence we see the necessity of having respect to heaven and glory in our obedience.