is a "pleasure"; union with God would not be called a pleasure, but
happiness. An old definition of man's true object is: "To know God, and
to enjoy Him for ever." There happiness is clearly made the true end
of man. The assailant changes the "greatest happiness of the greatest
number" into the "pleasure of the individual," and having created this
man of straw, he triumphantly knocks it down.

Does not virtue lead to happiness? Is it not a condition of happiness?
How does the Christian define virtue? It is obedience to the Will of
God. But he only obeys that Will as "revealed" so far as it agrees with
Utility. He no longer slays the heretic, and he suffers the witch to
live. He does not give his cloak to the thief who has stolen his coat,
but he hands over the thief to the policeman. Moreover, as Herbert
Spencer pointed out, he follows virtue as leading to heaven; if right
conduct led him to everlasting torture, would he still pursue it? Or
would he revise his idea of right conduct? The martyr dies for the truth
he sees, because it is easier _to him_ to die than to betray truth.
He could not live on happily as a conscious liar. The nobility of a
man's character is tested by the things which give him pleasure. The
joy in following truth, in striving after the noblest he can see--that
is the greatest happiness; to sacrifice present enjoyment for the
service of others is not self-denial, but self-expression, to the Spirit
who is man.

Where Utility fails is that it does not inspire, save where the
spiritual life is already seen to be the highest happiness of the
individual, because it conduces to the good of all, not only of the
"greatest number". Men who thus feel have inspiration from within
themselves and need no outside moral code, no compelling external law.
Ordinary men, the huge majority at the present stage of evolution, need