This gives Maurice's characteristic doctrine,repeated in countless forms with most genuine fervour,and yet leaving the painful impression that we can never get a distinct meaning.He tells us again and again that we require not a system but a revelation;that we are to believe in God,not in a theory about God;not in 'notions'but in principles;that a theology is groundless which 'accepts as a tenet what is revealed as a truth,'(173)and that we shall be 'driven to creeds'by 'weariness of tenets.'(174)These,and countless variations upon the same theme,involve a puzzling distinction.How,precisely,does the belief in God differ from the acceptance of a theory about God?Maurice,I may perhaps say,takes the belief in God to be an operation,not a mere bit of logic;an act of the man's whole nature,not a purely intellectual process such as the deduction of the conclusion of a syllogism.It is the apprehension of the 'inner light,'always perceptible if the eye be opened,and which is in the same indissoluble moment not merely enlightening but life-giving.The vision is also 'dynamical':the submission of ourselves to a force as well as the recognition of the existence of certain outward facts.It implies not merely the admission of a new theory about the universe,but the bringing ourselves into harmony with the one central force of the universe --that is with the God who is Love as well as power and wisdom.This is the true mystical doctrine;and that doctrine,if not the most logical,is the most unanswerable form of religious belief.If a man believes that he has the 'inner light,'he is in his own court beyond appeal.But the difficulty of making his decisions valid for others cannot be evaded,and implies some use of logic.If the inner light implies knowledge as well as an emotion,it should be expressible in forms true for all men.The mere formula by itself may be barren,or merely subordinate;but if any definite creed is to emerge,it must include tenets capable of logical expression.This is,in fact,the problem round which Maurice is always turning.
The result is indicated in his little book upon the Religions of the World.(175)It embodies one of the most marked tendencies of modern thought.No divine can now speak of strange religions as simply devil-worship,or limit divine truth to his own at of dogmas.The simple or logical rationalist had inferred that the true creed must be that which is common to all religions.But to reject all special doctrines was to leave a blank residuum of mere abstract deism,if even deism could survive.It was but another road to the 'religion of nature.'Yet that was the tendency of most liberal divines within the church.The 'broad church'party,as it was called,was getting rid of 'dogma'by depriving the creed of all meaning.Maurice's method is therefore different.The element of truth in all religions is not any separable doctrine common to all.It is to be found by regarding all creeds as partial or distorted expressions of the full truth revealed in Christ.On this showing therefore Buddhism testifies to the truth of Christianity,but Christianity does not testify to the truth of Buddhism.Or,to take a trifling but characteristic argument,(176)Wilberforce and the Unitarian,W.
Smith,were colleagues in a great benevolent work.Does that show that the doctrine of the Trinity is unimportant?No;Smith should have seen that the zeal of Wilberforce 'manifestly flowed out of the faith'in the divinity of Christ.Wilberforce,on the other hand,should see that Christ might rule in the heart of the Unitarian though the Unitarian knew it not.The divine influence may operate upon the heart which does not recognise its true nature.Thus Wilberforce,instead of becoming 'latitudinarian,'could escape 'latitudinarianism.'This may be true,but it would clearly not convince Smith.If you appeal to your heart,why may I not appeal to mine?Is not your conviction,after all,'subjective'--as representing your own personal prejudices --and would it not be just as easy,with equal skill,to invert the argument?Or is not the real source of action in both cases the benevolence which has nothing to do with either set of dogmas?
