ceived
to be socially injurious, and even cause dissent from the current
religion; either to the extent of disbelief in those alleged divine
attributes and acts not approved by this supreme moral arbiter, or to
the extent of entire rejection of a creed which ascribes such attributes
and acts.

Much that is required to make this hypothesis complete must stand over
until, at the close of the second volume of the _Principles of
Psychology_, I have space for a full exposition. What I have said will
make it sufficiently clear that two fundamental errors have been made in
the interpretation put upon it. Both Utility and Experience have been
construed in senses much too narrow. Utility, convenient a word as it is
from its comprehensiveness, has very inconvenient and misleading
implications. It vividly suggests uses, and means, and proximate ends,
but very faintly suggests the pleasures, positive or negative, which are
the ultimate ends, and which, in the ethical meaning of the word, are
alone considered; and, further, it implies conscious recognition of
means and ends--implies the deliberate taking of some course to gain a
perceived benefit. Experience, too, in its ordinary acceptation,
connotes definite perceptions of causes and consequences, as standing in
observed relations, and is not taken to include the connexions formed in
consciousness between states that recur together, when the relation
between them, causal or other, is not perceived. It is in their widest
senses, however, that I habitually use these words, as will be manifest
to every one who reads the _Principles of Psychology;_ and it is in
their widest senses that I have used them in the letter to Mr. Mill. I
think I have shown above that, when they are so understood, the
hypothesis briefly set forth in that letter is by no means so
indefensible as is supposed. At any rate, I have shown--what seemed for
the present needful to show--that Mr. Hutton's versions of my views must
not be accepted as correct.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 33: See _Prospective Review_ for January, 1852.]

[Footnote 34: His criticism will be found in the _National Review_ for
January, 1856, under the title "Atheism."]

[Footnote 35: Hereafter I hope to elucidate at length these phenomena of
expression. For the present, I can refer only to such further
indications as are contained in two essays on "The Physiology of
Laughter" and "The Origin and Function of Music."]

[Footnote 36: I may a