Hestill，thatis，requiresabreathing-spacefortheimagination。’Truthistheprovinceofreason，’but’intheregulationoftheimaginationliteraltruthoffactsisnottheonlythingtobeconsidered。’156*Reasonmustkeepthefortress，butthe’imaginationmaysafelyfollowitsownendanddoitsbesttomakelifepleasantandlovelyinsidethecastle。’
Thus，thoughweareonlyentitledtohopeastothegovernmentoftheworldandalifeafterdeath，thebarehopemayhaveabeneficialeffect。’Itmakeslifeandhumannatureafargreaterthingtothefeelings，andgivesgreaterstrengthandsolemnitytoallthesentimentswhichareawakenedinusbyourfellow-creaturesandmankindatlarge。’Aspirationsarenolongercheckedbythedisastrousfeelingof’notworthwhile。’Religion，too，hasatbeforeusa’DivinePerson，asastandardofexcellenceandamodelforimitation。’157*Theideal，itistrue，wouldremain，evenifthepersonwereheldtobeimaginary；
andwouldnotbeencumberedbytheologicaldifficulties。Yetthereisanadvantageinthebeliefthataperfectbeingreallyexistsandrepresentstheruleroftheuniverse，whichcannotbesharedbytherationalist。158*Henceas，afterall，thetruthofthebeliefispossible，itmaybecombinedwiththeReligionofHumanity。Thatreligion，’withorwithoutsupernaturalsanctions，’willbethereligionofthefuture；butitwillbestrengthenedbythefeelingthatweare’helpingGod’andsupplying’cooperation’which’he，notbeingomnipotent，reallyneeds。’159*Truly，Millwasnearlyqualifiedforaplaceamongtheprophets。
Mill’sarbitraryassumptions，likethemetaphysicalwiredrawingsofMansel，areratherunprofitableinthemselves：fewpeoplewillcaretofollowthemindetail；andneithercouldboastofmanyconverts。BelieverssoonbecameawareoftherealscepticismofMansel’sposition；andpositivistssawthatMillleftanopeningforsuperstition。BothManselandMillweretroubledabouttheReligionofNature。Itisabundantlyclear，asMillmighthaveforeseen，thatsuchatheologyashecontemplatescouldbeofnorealvalue。Itdependsessentiallyuponcompromisesandarbitrarydistinctions。Itisstillwithinthesphereofscience，thoughdoomedtodisappearasscienceadvances，andfromthefirstisinconsistentwiththeveryaimswhichareproposedbytheology。Godisadmittedlynotomnipotent，andhisexistenceisnoguaranteeformoralityoroptimism。AndhencethereisanoddapproximationbetweenMillandMansel。
Millobserves160*thatthemoralcharacterofanallegedrevelationcannotbeofitselfaproofofitsdivinity。Theimportanceofthe’internalevidence’istherefore’principallynegative。’SosaysMansel。’Theevidencederivedfromtheinternalcharacterofareligion，whatevermaybeitsvaluewithinitsproperlimits，is，asregardsthedivineoriginofthereligion，purelynegative。’161*Whereisthedifference？Ifthemoralityofarevelationbebad，Millarguesthattherevelationmustbeatoncerejected。Manselthinksthatalthoughthemoralitybenotclearlygood，itmayinsomewayrepresentadivinecommand。Immorallawscannotbedivine，saysMill，thoughagoodlawmaybehuman。Alawapparentlybad，repliesMansel，maybedivine，though，ofcourse，thebadnesscanonlybeapparent。Here，aselsewhere，thebelieverintheempiricalcharacterofmoralityappearstoattributemostcertaintytothemoraljudgment。Thesolutionsdifferaccordingly。MillsupposesthatGodmustbegood，butreconcilesthistofactsbyassumingthatGodisnotall-powerful。Manselwillnotgiveupthepower，andtopreservethegoodnesshastoassumearadicalincapacityintheintellect——anecessityofbelievingwherethereisanimpotenceofconceiving。Mill，thatis，iscontentwiththeempiricaldeity，whoisnecessarilylimited；andManselkeepsthedeityofontologybutadmitsthathecannotbeknown。Mill’sconceptionispurelyarbitrary，thoughhekeepswithinthelimitsofconceivableexperience；whileManselpreservesthelanguageappropriatetotheconceptionofabsoluteunity，andyetadmitsthatitcanmeannothingforus。’Agnosticism’seemstobeaneasierandmorerationalalternative；ifitmeansanopenadmissionthatweknownothing，whenwecanonlysaveourappearanceofknowledgebyarbitraryassumptionsorbytheuseofmeaninglesswords。OfMill’spositionitmustbefranklyadmittedthathisdesireforareligiousandevensupernaturalbeliefisaproofofdissatisfactionwithhisownposition。Hefelthere，aselsewhere，thatsomethingwaswantinginhisphilosophy。Whatthatreallywasmaypartlyappearbyconsideringothercontemporarysolutions。Manselrepresentsaparticularphaseofthoughtwhichisalreadyextinct，andviewsdifferingbothfromtheirsandfromMill’shadinpracticeafarwiderinfluencethaneither。
TheUtilitarianviewnaturallyidentifiesareligiouscreedwithabeliefincertainhistoricalstatementsoffact。Ifthefactsbeprovablethereligionistrue；ifdisproveditisfalse。
IftherewassuchabeingasJehovah，itwasdesirabletoworshiphim；andthecreedwouldthenbeuseful。Iftherewasnosuchbeing，worshipwasfolly。Thetestoftheutilityofareligionwas，therefore，simplythetruthorfalsehoodofitshistoricalstatements。Ifitsgodsweremadebythefancy，notbythereason，theresultisacondemnationofreligioningeneral。Thatissimpleandlogical，andrecognisesanindisputabletruth。Sofarasareligionmakesfalsestatements，theymustbeabandoned；
andsofarasitsinfluencedependsuponthefalsity，itispernicious。
Areligion，however，representsmorethancanbeestimatedbythissimpletest。ThepoeticalvalueofHomerisnotdestroyedbydisprovingtheexistenceofthePagandeisms，northevalueoftheHebrewScripturesbydisprovingtheexistenceofjehovah。Thefactsallegedmaybefabulousandabsurd；buttheyarealsosymbolsforsettingforthviewsoftheworldandofconduct，andsogivingemphaticutterancetoimportanttruths。Theoldreligionswereattemptsofmen，inearlystagesofthought，toembodyidealsofconductwhichmayreallyhavebeenofthehighestvaluetomankind。Theywereessential，again，tothesocialbondswhichhave，infact，determinedtheformationofsocietyandfacilitatedthegrowthofsympathyandphilanthropy。
Therefore，ifareligiouscreedbefalsewheninterpretedasasimplestatementoffact，wehavenotexhausteditssignificanceoreventouchedthereallymostimportantsignificanceofthereligionitself。Believersfeltmoreorlessclearlythatsuchattacksas’PhilipBeauchamp’affectedonlyexternals，andlefttheneedforreligionunsatisfied。Onlyastheactualcreedwaspledgedtomaintainthetruthofcertainstatements，whichweredailybecomingmoreincredible，thenecessityappearedoffindingsomestrongerpositionthantheoldPaleyscheme，whichvirtuallyregardedreligionasamerestatementofhistoricalfact，orasadepartmentofnaturalscience。Totracetheconsequenceswouldbetowriteahistoryofmoderntheology。IshalltryonlytoindicatetherelationtotheUtilitariansofafewthinkers。TwomainlinesofthoughtwereconspicuousinMill’sgeneration，andcorrespondtowhatNewmancalled’liberalism’and’dogmatism。’
VIII。LIBERALISM
AveryinstructiveexampleofonephaseofliberalthoughtwasFrederickDenisonMaurice1805-1872。BeforeMill’sattackuponMansel，MauricehadbeenengagedinasharpcontroversyinvokedbytheBamptonLecturer。Notwomencouldbemorethoroughlyatcross-purposes。Intheirargumentseachwordbearsadifferentsignificationforthetwodisputants。Each，ofcourse，vehementlydisapprovedtheother；andManselwasprovokedtocallMauricealiar162*indirectterms。Therealdifficultyistoreducetheargumenttoanycommonmeasure；andMaurice’sposition，thoughnoteasytodefine，issignificant。
Maurice，163*asIhavesaid，wasoneofMill’sfriendlyadversariesintheearlydebatingsociety。HisreferencestoMillarealwaysrespectful，littleascouldbetheirintellectualsympathy；whileMill’sjudgmentwasthat’moreintellectualpowerwaswastedinMauricethaninanyoneelseofmygeneration。’
DeeprespectforMaurice，admirationofhissubtletyandpowerofgeneralisation，onlyincreasedMill’swonderthathecouldfindalltruthintheThirty-nineArticles。164*MauricehadbeenbroughtupasaUnitarian，andwasprofoundlyimpressedbythebarrenwranglingoverthedogmaticpartitionsofvarioussects。
AfterlonghesitationheatlastfoundsatisfactionintheChurchofEnglandand，ashedeclared，byacceptingtheAnglicanformulaintheirobviousandmostnaturalsense。Tomenofotherpersuasions，hisinterpretationappearedonthecontrarytoamounttoacompletetransformationoftheirnaturalmeaning。
Mauricewasthereforeexcludedfromallthehigherpreferment，andpassedforaninsidiousheresiarch。Herepliedbyafullandfrank，thoughhardlyalucid，assertionofhisownconvictions；
andgraduallyproved，eventohisenemies，hisentiresuperioritytoanyworldlymotives。Hewasexpelledin1853fromhisprofessorshipatKing’sCollegefordenyingthetruthofthepopularversionofhell，alittlebeforethedenialhadbecomeacommonplace。Discipleshadalreadygatheredroundhimandregardedhimwiththereverenceduetothepurityandloftinessofhischaracter。AstheheadoftheChristianSocialistsinthecriticalperiodof1848，hehadatleastgivenaproofthatdivinescouldtakeagenuineinterestinthegreatsocialproblemsoftheday。Mauricehimselfwaslittlequalifiedforbusinessdetails，andthewholemovementfailedforthetime，likemostotherswhichstartfromthesympathyoftheoutsidersinsteadoftheactualexperienceoftheactualsufferers。Itwas，however，significantofamostimportantchange，moreeasilyunderestimatedthanexaggerated。Mauricedeservesallrespect，asMillobserves，forhisaction，ofwhich，moreover，itisonlyjusttosaythatitwasreallycharacteristicofhiswholeposition。
What，then，wasMaurice’spositionintheology？Inthefirstplaceherecognisedmostfullyatruthwhich，invariousforms，givestherealstrengthtoallgreatreligiousteachers。Heheldthatthevalueofareligiondependsuponitscongenialitytothehighestpartsofhumannature。HeisthusattheoppositepoletothePhilipBeauchampdoctrine，accordingtowhichtheessenceofreligionistocreateaspiritualpolice，andtoaddthesanctionofhelltothesanctionofthegallows。Mauriceisequallyopposedtothesacerdotalismwhichmakestheessenceofreligionconsistinamagicalremovalofpenaltiesinsteadofa’regeneration’ofthenature。Hetakeswhatmaybevaguelycalledthe’subjective’viewofreligion，andsympathiseswithSchleiermacher’sstatementthatpietyis’neitheraknowingnoradoing，butaninclinationanddeterminationofthefeeling。’165*Itisevident，again，thatMauricecouldaslittlebasehisbeliefuponexternalevidenceashismoralityuponexternalSanctions。Sofarhemaybesaidtocoincidewiththephilosophicalview。Areligionmustbeanexpressionofgeneraltruthsaccessibletoallmen，andindependentoftimeandplace。Mauricehadbeenawidereaderofphilosophy；hespentmuchtimeuponahistoryof’MetaphysicalandMoralphilosophy’166*which，ifvagueinthestatementofdefinitetheories，showswidesympathyanddesiretoenterintothespiritofthevariousschools。IntheKingdomofChrist167*hedeclaresthat’eclecticismisanecessityoftheage’；meaningbyeclecticismadoctrinewhichshalldiscoverwhatisthetruthcontainedinallthepartialsystemsandcreedsofallages。
Here，again，Mauricewassharingthebestliberalimpulsesoftheday，andsharingthembecausetheywerecongenialtoagenerousandtender-heartednature。Thesametendencymakeshimaversetoanydefinitesystemofmetaphysicaldogmas。ThedialecticalwranglingsoverdogmaswhichdisgustedhiminhisyouthappearedagaininMansel’smetaphysics。TheBamptonLecturesshowed，accordingtohim，thatwecannotleavethegroundofsolidfactforthe’logicalgroundwithoutbeinginvolvedinaseriesofhopelessquibbleswhichnohumanbeingoughttotroublehimselfwith，unlesshemeanstoabandonthebusinessofexistenceandtogivehimselfuptofeatsofjugglery。’168*Insuchregionsnolastingfoundationcanbefound。Nor，ontheotherhand，canwebesatisfiedwiththemerehistoricalcriticswho，likeStrauss，pickholesinthegospelsor，likeStrauss’sopponents，managetomendthem；orwiththephilologistswhoarguewhether’thelineintheOcanbedetectedwiththeaidofspectaclesornot。’169*Areligionwhichistomovemen’sheartsmusthavesomewideranddeeperbasis。