PRELATICAL AND PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP CONTRASTED.
James Dodson
Calderwood published in 1628 a treatise entitled “The Pastor and the Prelate,” recently reprinted, the object of which was to draw clear lines of distinction betwixt the Government, doc-
Page 35
trine, and worship of the Prelatical and of the Presbyterian Churches respectively. In the preface to this treatise he says—
“We stand bound by solemn oath, covenant, and subscription, published to the world, to defend the doctrine and discipline of this Kirk, and to oppose the hierarchy and all rites and ceremonies added to the worship of God. Silence in such a case may be sin to other kirks, but to us it is perjury in the sight of God.”
Now here are two of the essential distinctions which he draws:—
“The pastor thinketh it the principal part of his ministry to labour in the word and doctrine, because woe is unto him if he preach not the gospel,” &c.
“The prelate thinketh of preaching as accessory, and would have it worn out of use by a long dead liturgy,” &c.
“The pastor loveth no music in the house of God but such as edifieth, and stoppeth his ears at instrumental music as serving for the pedagogy of the untoward Jews under the law, and being figurative of that spiritual joy whereunto our hearts should be opened under the gospel.”
“The prelate loveth carnal and curious singing to the ear more than the spiritual melody of the gospel, and therefore would have antiphony and organs in the Cathedral Kirks upon no greater reason than other shadows of the law of Moses, or lesser instruments as lutes, cittherns, or pipes might be used in other kirks.”—(Presbyterian Armoury, vol. iii. p. 4. Edinburgh: Robert Ogle. 1843.)