[Footnote 2:  At least in their devotional and moral import.  I suggest this qualification in deference to M. Le Roy’s interesting theory of dogma, viz., that the verbal or intellectual definition of a dogma may be changed without changing the dogma itself (as a sentence might be translated into a new language without altering the meaning) provided the suggested conduct and feeling in the presence of the mystery remained the same.  Thus the definition of transubstantiation might be modified to suit an idealistic philosophy, but the new definition would be no less orthodox than the old if it did not discourage the worship of the consecrated elements or the sense of mystical union with Christ in the sacrament.]

At this point the modernist first chooses the path which must lead him away, steadily and for ever, from the church which he did not think to desert.  He chooses a personal, psychological, variable standard of inspiration; he becomes, in principle, a Protestant.  Why does he not become one in name also?  Because, as one of the most distinguished modernists has said, the age of partial heresy is past.  It is suicidal to make one part of an organic system the instrument for attacking another part; and it is also comic.  What you appeal to and stand firmly rooted in is no more credible, no more authoritative, than what you challenge in its name.  In vain will you pit the church against the pope; at once you will have to pit the Bible against the church, and then the New Testament against the Old, or the genuine Jesus against the New Testament, or God revealed in nature against God revealed in the Bible, or God revealed in your own conscience or transcendental self against God revealed in nature; and you will be lucky if your conscience and transcendental self can long hold their own against the flux of immediate experience.  Religion, the modernists feel, must be taken broadly and sympathetically, as a great human historical symbol for the truth.  At least in Christianity you should aspire to embrace and express the whole; to seize it in its deep inward sources and follow it on all sides in its vital development.  But if the age of partial heresy is past, has not the age of total heresy succeeded?  What is this whole phenomenon of religion but human experience interpreted by human imagination?  And what is the modernist, who would embrace it all, but a freethinker, with a sympathetic interest in religious illusions?  Of course, that is just what he is; but it takes him a strangely long time to discover it.  He fondly supposes (such is the prejudice imbibed by him in the cradle and in the seminary) that all human inspirations are necessarily similar and concurrent, that by trusting an inward light he cannot be led away from his particular religion, but on the contrary can only find confirmation for it, together with fresh spiritual energies.  He has been reared in profound ignorance of other religions, which were presented to him, if at all, only in grotesque