Continuation.- Now, since the end, which is the love of man's will, provides or procures for itself through the understanding the means by which the ultimate end may exist, and this end to which the first end advances by means is the existing end; and since this is use, it follows that the end loves the means, when they perform this use, and that if they do not perform it, it does not love them, but rejects them, and by the understanding provides or procures for itself others. It is therefore evident what a man's quality is, if his principal end is the love of eminence, that is the love of glory and honours, or if his principal end is the love of opulence, that is the love of money and possessions, namely, that he regards all means as subservient to him for the attainment of the ultimate end, which is the love existing, and this is use to himself.

[2] Take as an example the case of a priest, whose principal end is the love of money or possessions. His means are the ministry, the Word, his doctrine, his erudition, and his preaching founded on them, and by these the instruction of the members of the church, their reformation and salvation. These means are estimated by him according to the end and for the sake of the end, but still they are not loved-although with some it appears as if they were loved-for opulence is the object of his love, because it is the first and ultimate end, and this end, as was observed, is altogether in the means. He says, indeed, that his desire is that the members of the church should be instructed, reformed, and saved; but because he says those things with opulence as an end, they form no part of his love; they are only the means of his acquiring reputation and gain on their account. It is similar with a priest, whose principal end is the love of preeminence. Let profit or honour be separated from the means, and you will see.

[3] The case is entirely different if the instruction, reformation, and salvation of souls are the principal end, while opulence and eminence are the means; for the priest is then of an altogether different character. In the latter case he is spiritual, while in the former case he is natural. With a spiritual priest opulence and eminence are blessings, but with a natural priest they are curses. That this is the case can be proved from much experience in the spiritual world. Many have been seen and heard there, who said that they had taught, and written, and had brought reformation about, but when the end or love of their will was made manifest, it was then clear that they had acted in everything for the sake of themselves and the world, and in nothing for the sake of God and their neighbour, yea, in fact, that they had cursed God and injured their neighbour. Such are those meant in Matt. vii. 22, 23; and in Luke xiii. 26, 27.