nient for its necessity. If indeed we affirm, as we do, that society 
has always had Religion among its foundations, we imply that it 
is useful ; but more, it is vital. To talk simply of its utility is 
like speaking of the utility of vision or locomotion; and in so 
insisting we do not lose sight of the individual any more than of 
society. For it is an irrational paradox, and doubly so if in the 
mouth of Utilitarianism, to say that the well-being of the 
social system, as a whole, could be our object, apart from that 
of the man himself. There is no motive for promoting the good 
of either apart from the other ultimately. The appeal to an 
imagined “ unselfishness ” and the deprecation of “reward” in 
either case is unworthy, because, as Mr. Mill confesses (p. 84), 
“ social morality is the summary of the conduct which each one 
of the multitude, whether he observes it with any strictness or 
not, desires that others should observe towards him,” — a truth 
more tersely expressed by a far higher authority as the sum “ of 
the law and the prophets.” But is not this also “ exceeding great 
Reward ” ? 
40. But the “Utility ” which pertains to Christianity, as the 
utility onc true Religion, differs from that which is indeed 
The 
of Christianity generally inseparable from the Religious Institute 
specially. 0 •, 1 , T , • • 
even in its corrupt forms. It consists in its promot- 
ing the well-being, to the highest ideal, both of the individual 
and the community. Christianity also, it should be remembered, 
develops many of the higher principles of human asso- 
ciation, and the mingled result not unfrequently is practically 
a “ great reward.” Nor is this to be thought in any way 
derogatory to its theory, but the reverse. A true utilitarian 
philosophy is based also on the fact, which Mr. Mill ought to 
have weighed, that some things reward us, and some punish ; 
and that the former arc to be chosen when rightly possible. We 
add this, because the objections in this essay to the Christian 
The idea of promises in the hereafter are all tinged with the same 
"Reward.” fallacy. The highest “ reward ” is never a mechanical 
addition to present effort; it is in ourselves; it is a conscious 
development, which even becomes a crown. The philosophy of 
Reward and of Utility will be found fundamentally in agree- 
ment. 
41. The primary logical blot on this second Essay is that it uses 
the word “Religion” ambiguously, so that the idea is never 
properly grasped. Mr. Mill sees but indistinctly its two-fold 
meaning, for it expresses on the one hand the general sense of a 
community, or, on the other, the inward conviction of the indi- 
vidual, identified with his reason and his discernment of right 
throughout life and action. In the latter sense, perhaps, none 
