types of ceremonial religion, suited to different levels of mind and
different developments of the religious consciousness. To some extent
this is already done: traditionalism and liberalism, sacramentalism,
revivalism, quietism, have each their existing cults. But these varying
types of church now appear as competitors, too often hostile; not as the
complementary and graded expressions of one life, each having truth in
the relative though none in the absolute sense. Did we more openly
acknowledge the character of that life, the historic Churches would no
longer invite the sophisticated to play down to their own primitive
fantasies; to sing meaningless hymns and recite vindictive psalms, or
lull themselves by the recitation of litany or rosary which, admirable
as the instruments of suggestion, are inadequate expressions of the
awakened spiritual life. On the one hand, they would not require the
simple to express their corporate religious feeling in Elizabethan
English or Patristic Latin; on the other, expect the educated to accept
at face-value symbols of which the unreal character is patent to them.
Nor would they represent these activities as possessing absolute value
in themselves.

To join in simplicity and without criticism in the common worship,
humbly receiving its good influences, is one thing. This is like the
drill of the loyal soldier; welding him to his neighbours, giving him
the corporate spirit and forming in him the habits he needs. But to stop
short at that drill, and tell the individual that drill is the essence
of his life and all his duty, is another thing altogether. It confuses
means and end; destroys the balance between liberty and law. If the
religious institution is to do its real work in furthering the life of
the Spirit, it must introduce a more rich variety into its methods; and
thus educate souls of every type not only to be members of the group but
also to grow up to the full richness of the personal life. It must