You esteem him--possibly you admire him.

You may make him your deputy, but you would not necessarily choose him for a friend.
Let, then, the two moral systems, instead of criminating each other, act in concert, and attack vice at its opposite poles.

While the economists perform their task in uprooting prejudice, stimulating just and necessary opposition, studying and exposing the real nature of actions and things, let the religious moralist, on his part, perform his more attractive, but more difficult, labor; let him attack the very body of iniquity, follow it to its most vital parts, paint the charms of beneficence, self-denial and devotion, open the fountains of virtue where we can only choke the sources of vice--this is his duty.

It is noble and beautiful.

But why does he dispute the utility of that which belongs to us?
In a society which, though not superlatively virtuous, should nevertheless be regulated by the influences of _economical morality_ (which is the knowledge of the economy of society), would there not be a field for the progress of religious morality?
Habit, it has been said, is a second nature.