persons who attain the greatest satisfaction and enjoyment which
they might attain in the present world, as who do the greatest good
to others which they might do; nay, that there are as few who can be
said really and in earnest to aim at one as at the other. Take a
survey of mankind: the world in general, the good and bad, almost
without exception, equally are agreed that were religion out of the
case, the happiness of the present life would consist in a manner
wholly in riches, honours, sensual gratifications; insomuch that one
scarce hears a reflection made upon prudence, life, conduct, but
upon this supposition. Yet, on the contrary, that persons in the
greatest affluence of fortune are no happier than such as have only
a competency; that the cares and disappointments of ambition for the
most part far exceed the satisfactions of it; as also the miserable
intervals of intemperance and excess, and the many untimely deaths
occasioned by a dissolute course of life: these things are all
seen, acknowledged, by every one acknowledged; but are thought no
objections against, though they expressly contradict, this universal
principle--that the happiness of the present life consists in one or
other of them. Whence is all this absurdity and contradiction? Is
not the middle way obvious? Can anything be more manifest than that
the happiness of life consists in these possessed and enjoyed only
to a certain degree; that to pursue them beyond this degree is
always attended with more inconvenience than advantage to a man's
self, and often with extreme misery and unhappiness? Whence, then,
I say, is all this absurdity and contradiction? Is it really the
result of consideration in mankind, how they may become most easy to
themselves, most free from care, and enjoy the chief happiness
attainable in this world? Or is it not manifestly owing either to
this, that they have not cool and reasonable concern enough for
themselves to consider wherein their chief happiness in the present