DEMOCRATIC WORSHIP AND THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
[To THE EDITOR os sas "Spam...mm.1 Sin—In your article of March 2nd on the Diseatablishment of the Church of England you claim that the Establishment is democratic. May I point out that in the matter of public worship it is more democratic than the Free Churches ? This will be evident from a comparison of the Anglican and Free Church services. The words "common prayer" express the beautiful ideal of a service in which, according to the use of the Church of England, the whole congregation participate. Such participation is not confined to the singing of hymns, but includes the audible repetition of prayers, the uttering of responses as a complement to the prayers read by the minister, and often the reading of the Lessons by lay members of the congregation. The minister and people, in fact, literally unite together in a common act of worship expressed in simple language " understanded of the people." The minister takes no position in the church which renders his personality obtrusive. He is conspicuous, and then rightly so, only while preaching. Could any mode of worship be more democratic ? The Free Church ideal in worship is, I suppose, "simplicity." There is little difference among the Free Churches in the mode of conducting their services, and in only a few are liturgical forms used. Instead of uniting in common prayer, the congregation listens to extempore prayers offered by the minister. These are not always simple, either in the thoughts which they express, or in the language in Which they are spoken; often they cease to be prayers, and seem to develop into discourses addressed to the congregation. The minister himself conducts the whole of the service from the same elevated, and often lofty, pulpit or rostrum from which he preaches, and the result is that from beginning to end the service is dominated by the personality of one man. Whatever may be urged for such a service on the ground of simplicity, this at least is certain,—it is not democratic.—