Wesley Corpus

This was not your motive of acting. It was not the desire of doing more good, whether to the souls or bodies of men; it was not the love of God: (You know it was not; your own conscience is as a thousand witnesses.) But it was “the love of money,” and “the desire of other things,” which animated you in this pursuit. If, then, the word of God is true, you are in darkness still: It fills and covers your soul. I might add, a larger income does not necessarily imply a capacity of doing more spiritual good. And this is the highest kind of good. It is good to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked: But it is a far nobler good to “save souls from death,” to “pluck” poor “brands out of the burning.” And it is that to which you are peculiarly called, and to which you have solemnly promised to “bend all your studies and endeavours.” But you are by no means sure, that, by adding a second living to your first, you shall be more capable of doing good in this kind, than you would have been had you laid out all your time, and all your strength, on your first flock. “However, I shall be able to do more temporal good.” You are not sure even of this. “If riches increase, they are increased that eat them.” Perhaps your expenses may rise proportionably with your income. But if not, if you have a greater ability, shall you have a greater willingness, to do good? You have no reason in the world to believe this. There are a thousand instances of the contrary. How many have less will when they have more power ! Now they have more money, they love it more; when they had little, they did their “diligence gladly to give of that little; ” but since they have had much, they are so far from “giving plenteously,” that they can hardly afford to give at all. “But by my having another living, I maintain a valuable man, who might otherwise want the necessaries of life.” I answer, (1.) Was this your whole and sole motive in seeking that other living? If not, this plea will not clear you from the charge; your eye was not single.