say they are not Christians at heart, but diametrically opposed to the fundamental faith and purpose of Christianity, is not to say they may not be profound mystics (as many Hindus, Jews, and pagan Greeks have been), or excellent scholars, or generous philanthropists.  But the very motive that attaches them to Christianity is worldly and un-Christian.  They wish to preserve the continuity of moral traditions; they wish the poetry of life to flow down to them uninterruptedly and copiously from all the ages.  It is an amiable and wise desire; but it shows that they are men of the Renaissance, pagan and pantheistic in their profounder sentiment, to whom the hard and narrow realism of official Christianity is offensive just because it presupposes that Christianity is true.

Yet even in this historical and poetical allegiance to Christianity I suspect the modernists suffer from a serious illusion.  They think the weakness of the church lies in its not following the inspirations of the age.  But when this age is past, might not that weakness be a source of strength again?  For an idea ever to be fashionable is ominous, since it must afterwards be always old-fashioned.  No doubt it would be dishonest in any of us now, who see clearly that Noah surely did not lead all the animals two by two into the Ark, to say that we believe he did so, on the ground that stories of that kind are rather favourable to the spread of religion.  No doubt such a story, and even the fables essential to Christian theology, are now incredible to most of us.  But on the other hand it would be stupid to assume that what is incredible to you or me now must always be incredible to mankind.  What was foolishness to the Greeks of St. Paul’s day spread mightily among them one or two hundred years later; and what is foolishness to the modernist of to-day may edify future generations.  The imagination is suggestible and there is nothing men will not believe in matters of religion.  These rational persuasions by which we are swayed, the conventions of unbelieving science and unbelieving history, are superficial growths; yesterday they did not exist, to-morrow they may have disappeared.  This is a doctrine which the modernist philosophers themselves emphasise, as does M. Bergson, whom some of them follow, and say the Catholic church itself ought to follow in order to be saved—­for prophets are constitutionally without a sense of humour.  These philosophers maintain that intelligence is merely a convenient method of picking one’s way through the world of matter, that it is a falsification of life, and wholly unfit to grasp the roots of it.  We may well be of another opinion, if we think the roots of life are not in consciousness but in nature, which intelligence alone can reveal; but we must agree that in life itself intelligence is a superficial growth, and easily blighted, and that the experience of the vanity of the world, of sin, of salvation, of miracles, of strange revelations, and of mystic loves is a far deeper, more primitive, and therefore probably more lasting human possession than is that of clear historical or scientific ideas.