130 
tinguished from pleasure, but 'pleasure itself } together with ex- 
emption from pain .” And “yet (lie goes on) the common 
herd, including the herd of writers, not only in newspapers 
and periodicals, but in boohs of weight and pretension, are 
perpetually falling into this shallow mistake A Mr. Mill uses 
this rather strong language; although he admits that the term 
has been thus “ ignorantly misapplied,"” not “ solely in ^dis- 
paragement, but occasionally in compliment, as though it 
implied superiority to frivolity, and the mere pleasures of the 
moment.” Now, as Mr. Mill claims to have been “ the first 
person who brought the word utilitarian into use,"” he is, of 
course, well entitled to explain what he may have meant by it ; 
but it does seem somewhat unreasonable to be angry that the 
term has been so generally understood in its obvious sense, as 
signifying that which is antithetical to “ pleasure in some of 
its forms ” — to beauty, ornament, or amusement. We find the 
word described as a “ modern barbarism ” in some of our dic- 
tionaries ; and our lexicographers seem all unaware that by the 
useful is meant also the ornamental, beautiful, pleasant, and 
amusing. But whether the etymon of the term be regarded 
as the English word utility , or the Latin word utilitas , I am 
equally unable to see upon what philological ground Mr. Mill 
can claim to be so very right in the peculiar sense lie applies 
to it, and “ the herd of writers in newspapers and periodicals,” 
and even “ in books of weight,” so very wrong and “ shallow, 
mistaken and ignorant.” If, again, there was really no differ- 
ence between what Epicurus and Bentham taught, “the 
common herd ” may be excused for thinking that it might have 
been quite as well not to have given a new name, and one so 
liable to be misunderstood, to an old and well-known system of 
heathen morals. Not that I can admit that Benthamism and 
the Epicurean philosophy, are really alike, though Mr. Mill 
seems to say as much ; any more than I think it certain that 
Epicurus would have rejected a higher foundation and sanction 
for his system of happiness (based as it was upon virtuous 
action alone), such as the revelation of .God’s will affords, if he 
had only had the opportunity of knowing it as we have. We 
must not forget that what may have been an admirable theory 
of morals for the heathen, and for them a sound foundation 
for human virtue and goodness, may have a very different 
character when it is professedly put forward in antagonism with 
Christianity. It is one thing to reject, as Epicurus did, the 
heathen superstitions as to a future life, and quite another to 
reject what the Bible and Christianity teach as to future re- 
wards and punishments. The best of the heathen philosophers, 
moreover, admitted the imperfections of their own moral 
