PHI LOS 0 P H Y . - Classic Works of Apologetics Online

60 MaralObligatifJli.
".
~f )1((1 distrusted a man who owed me a sum of money, I
, should reckon it an act of prudence to get another
'f=r' person bound with him; but I should hardly call it
, ~ an act of duty. On the other hand, it would be
. thought a very unusual and 'loose kind of language,
to say, that as I had made such a promise it was pruM
), dent to perform it; or that as my friend, when he
. went abroad, placed a box of jewels in my hands, it
\VOllld be prudent in Ine to preserve it for him: till he
returned.
Now, in what, you \\Till asl(, does the difference con1l
51St? ina§much as, according to our account of the
matter, both in the one case and the other, in acts of
duty as well as acts of prudence, we consider solely
\"vhat we ourselves shall gain or lose by the act?
! The' diffel-ence, and the only difference, is this;
that, in the one case we consider what we shall gain
:or lose in the present world; jn tIle other case we
consider what also we shall gain or lose in the ",-orld
fto co:ne.
1 Those who would establish a system of moraiity,
independent of a future state, must~ook out for some
difrerent idea of moral obligation; unless they can
shew that virtue conducts the possessor to certain hapM
piness in this life, or to a much great,~r share of it,
than he could attain by a different beha,iour.
I
To us there are two great questions ~
"- I. Will there be after this life any distrib!1'tion of
i"ewards a~.1d punishments at all?
'- II. If there be, what actions will be rewardeli, and
what will be punished ?
The first question comprises the credibility of ~he
Christian religion, together with the presumptIve
proofs of a future retribution from the light of nature.
The tecond question comprises the province
of morality. Both questions are too nluch for o~e.