If preferment, or honour, or profit was in his eye, his eye was not single. And our Lord knew no medium between a single and an evil eye. The eye therefore which is not single is evil. It is a plain, adjudged case. He then that has any other design in undertaking or executing the office of a minister, than purely this, to glorify God and save souls, his eye is not single. Of consequence, it is evil; and therefore his whole body must be full of darkness. The light which is in him is very darkness: darkness covers his whole soul: he has no solid peace: he has no blessing from God: And there is no fruit of his labours.
It is no wonder, that they who see no harm in this, see no harm in adding one living to another, and, if they can, another to that; yet still wiping their mouth, and saying, they have done no evil. In the very first step, their eye was not single: therefore their mind was filled with darkness. So they stumble on still in the same mire, till their feet stumble on the dark mountains.
*It is pleaded indeed, That “a small living will not maintain a large family.” Maintain? How? It will not cloath them in purple and fine linen; nor enable them to fare sumptuously every day. But will not the living you have now, afford you and yours the plain necessaries, yea and conveniencies of life? Will it not maintain you in the frugal, Christian simplicity, which becomes a minister of Christ? It will not maintain you in pomp and grandeur, in elegant luxury, in fashionable sensuality. So much the better. If your eyes were open, whatever your income was, you would flee from these as from hell-fire.
It has been pleaded, secondly, “by having a larger income, I am able to do more good.” But dare you aver, in the presence of God, that it was singly with this view, only for this end, that you sought a larger income? If not, you are still condemned before God; your eye was not single. Do not therefore quibble and evade. 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 cloath 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 encrease, they are increased that eat them. Perhaps your expences 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. 2. If it was you may put it beyond dispute. You may prove at once the purity of your intention. Make that valuable man rector of one of your parishes, and you are clear before God and man.
But what can be pleaded for those who have two or more flocks, and take care of none of them? Who just look at them now and then for a few days, and then remove to a convenient distance, and say, soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease; eat, drink, and be merry?
*Some years ago I was asking a plain man, “Ought not he who feeds the flock, to eat of the milk of the flock?” He answered, “Friend, I have no objection to that. But what is that to him who does not feed the flock? He stands on the far side of the hedge, and feeds himself. It is another who feeds the flock. And ought he to have the milk of the flock? What canst thou say for him? Truly, nothing at all. And he will have nothing to say for himself, when the great Shepherd shall pronounce that just sentence, bind the unprofitable servant hand and foot, and cast him into outer darkness.”
I have dwelt the longer on this head, because a right intention is the first point of all, and the most necessary of all; inasmuch as the want of this cannot be supplied by any thing else whatsoever. It is the setting out wrong; a fault never to be amended, unless you return to the place whence you came, and set out right. It is impossible therefore to lay too great stress upon a single eye, a pure intention; without which, all our sacrifice, our prayers, sermons and sacraments are an abomination to the Lord.