What,then,was Maurice's position in theology?In the first place he recognised most fully a truth which,in various forms,gives the real strength to all great religious teachers.He held that the value of a religion depends upon its congeniality to the highest parts of human nature.He is thus at the opposite pole to the Philip Beauchamp doctrine,according to which the essence of religion is to create a spiritual police,and to add the sanction of hell to the sanction of the gallows.Maurice is equally opposed to the sacerdotalism which makes the essence of religion consist in a magical removal of penalties instead of a 'regeneration'of the nature.He takes what may be vaguely called the 'subjective'view of religion,and sympathises with Schleiermacher's statement that piety is 'neither a knowing nor a doing,but an inclination and determination of the feeling.'(165)It is evident,again,that Maurice could as little base his belief upon external evidence as his morality upon external Sanctions.So far he may be said to coincide with the philosophical view.A religion must be an expression of general truths accessible to all men,and independent of time and place.Maurice had been a wide reader of philosophy;he spent much time upon a history of 'Metaphysical and Moral philosophy'(166)which,if vague in the statement of definite theories,shows wide sympathy and desire to enter into the spirit of the various schools.In the Kingdom of Christ(167)he declares that 'eclecticism is a necessity of the age';meaning by eclecticism a doctrine which shall discover what is the truth contained in all the partial systems and creeds of all ages.
Here,again,Maurice was sharing the best liberal impulses of the day,and sharing them because they were congenial to a generous and tender-hearted nature.The same tendency makes him averse to any definite system of metaphysical dogmas.The dialectical wranglings over dogmas which disgusted him in his youth appeared again in Mansel's metaphysics.The Bampton Lectures showed,according to him,that we cannot leave the ground of solid fact for the 'logical ground without being involved in a series of hopeless quibbles which no human being ought to trouble himself with,unless he means to abandon the business of existence and to give himself up to feats of jugglery.'(168)In such regions no lasting foundation can be found.Nor,on the other hand,can we be satisfied with the mere historical critics who,like Strauss,pick holes in the gospels or,like Strauss's opponents,manage to mend them;or with the philologists who argue whether 'the line in the O can be detected with the aid of spectacles or not.'(169)A religion which is to move men's hearts must have some wider and deeper basis.
So far Maurice's teaching would command the sympathy of all who called themselves liberal.But what becomes of Logic?Can philosophy dispense with it altogether?Maurice professedly appeals to the heart.The appeal is made over and over again in a great variety of forms:to the 'great human heart,'to 'bedridden sufferers,'to 'peasants,women,and children,'(170)and we are told that it is the 'office of the theologian'to appeal not to his own judgment or that of the ages,but to the 'conscience,heart,reason of mankind.'(171)Nothing can be more to the purpose if we are considering the efficacy of a religious belief;but we must ask how this appeal is related to the question of its truth.The emotions are not reason,though they are bound to be reasonable.The position is that of all mysticism.The mystic is one who virtually dethrones reason in favour of the heart.
Therefore mysticism leads to all the varying beliefs which are suggested by our unguided feelings.When Maurice was charged with being himself a mystic or neoplatonist,his reply was that the error of the mystic is not in recognising an 'inner light,'but in supposing that his intuition is something personal and private,and not a universal faculty of the human heart.(172)He admits,that is,that all religion implies the direct recognition of divine influences by the human heart,though it is terribly apt to confound the true intuition with certain erroneous doctrines.By what test,then,are we to separate the true light from the misleading gleams of human passion and prejudices?How can we know that it is the divine Logos which is speaking to us,and not some sophist substituting a mere human theory?
