If puritanism failed to see how easily the virtue of thrift might be transmuted into the vice of avarice, it was even less careful to guard the righteous soul against the perils to virtue which inhere in the power which wealth supplies. There are few men who can wield extraordinary power without making it the tool of their own desires and without magnifying their limitations which might pass unnoticed in less puissant individuals. Puritanism did indeed have a doctrine of stewardship, but it was applied to the privilege which flowed from economic power and not to the possession of power itself. There was never enough imagination in puritanic religion to detect how nature in the soul of man, frustrated by a discipline of the senses, comes into its own through the sins of the mind. It knew how to redeem human life from its vagrant passions, but it did not know how to deal with those dominant desires, the lust for power and the greed for gain, which express themselves more frequently in a disciplined personality than in a chaotic one and which may be more detrimental to the welfare of others than the consequences of undisciplined and momentary passions. It was a spiritual discipline admirably suited to lift the middle classes to a dominant position in society but hardly designed to guide them in the use of the power once they had achieved it. Even its abhorrence of luxury and prohibition of extravagance is finally softened in a civilization which has profited all too well by its virtues and is tempted to destroy them by the very advantages which the virtues supplied. John Wesley, who revived puritan morality after it had declined in its original form, saw this problem more clearly than his predecessors, but he had no answer for it except to advocate philanthropic generosity. He writes in his _Journal_: “Religion must necessarily produce both industry and frugality, and these cannot but produce riches. But as riches increase so will pride, anger and love of the world in all its branches.... So although the form of religion remains, the spirit is swiftly vanishing away. Is there no way to prevent this—this continual decay of pure religion? We ought not prevent people from being diligent and frugal; we must exhort all Christians to gain all they can and save all they can; that is, in effect, to grow rich. What way then can we take that our money may not sink us in the nethermost hell? There is one way and there is no other under heaven. If those who gain all they can and save all they can will likewise give all they can, then the more they give the more will they grow in grace and the more treasure will they lay in heaven.”[10] Wesley, of course, could hardly be expected to appreciate that money represents power even more than privilege in modern society, and that philanthropy may become a method of satisfying the ego and displaying power.