Appendices

I. Paraphrases and hymns
There are some persons who, whilst not prepared to advocate the use of hymns in divine worship, are disposed to favour the use of paraphrases. Sometimes this partiality for them has been occasioned by old associations. Perhaps in their youthful days they had been accustomed to sing paraphrases, or they look upon the use of them as a compromise betwixt psalm-singing and hymn-singing. In any case we must resort to Scripture in order to determine if their use in worship is lawful.

Scripture affords no authority for the singing of paraphrases in divine worship. It should be observed that doctrinally some of them are unsound. One does not need to be a literary critic to recognise that most of the compositions in the collection called paraphrases, are not paraphrases at all. Why they were so classified we may never know; but we may surmise that they being hymns, were placed in the category of paraphrases in order to aid their importation into the praise of God. Some of them, like some hymns, have certain beauties of thought and expression, but unlike the Psalms, are not divinely appointed to be used in worship. The Scriptural principle governing worship is that what is not prescribed by God is forbidden. We must act in accordance with that principle, and rigorously exclude the paraphrases from our worship of God.

Concerning hymns, it has been considered unnecessary to criticise adversely the contents of hymn-books, for our primary aim has been to treat the subject of worship in the light of Scripture and Scripture, as we have seen, rules out hymns in principle. True it is that numerous hymns cannot endure the searchlight of the Word of God, but the severest critics of the hymns are those who use them. From time to time scathing criticisms of hymns come from leaders in various churches. If psalm-singing Christians were to utter such devastating criticisms, they would be regarded as narrow-minded and boorish. For example, "The Sydney Morning Herald" of October 8th, 1966, recorded that "the Anglican Bishop of Grafton, N.S.W., recently described many hymns used in his Church as 'sentimental, unpoetical, nonsensical and heretical'." How ironical it is that these same Christians will be found defending the use of hymns in worship in preference to God-given, God-appointed songs of praise, the Psalms.

II. Liturgies
The modern pronounced tendency to use liturgical forms makes this subject of additional importance. The more reformed churches, at an early stage came to regard with disfavour the use of liturgies, and this disapproval continued until recent times.

The case for and against the use of set forms in worship must be decided by appealing to Scripture. There is convincing evidence that free prayer was in use in the Apostolic Church, and one outstanding example is found in Acts 4:23-30. There is also no indication that written prayers were used in the Apostolic Church.

Those who favour the use of liturgical forms are disposed to refer to the fact that John Calvin compiled what might be termed a service book; for the Reformer drew up certain forms to be used in administering the Sacraments, celebrating marriage, etc. Likewise, John Knox compiled the "Book of Common Order". Both these service books were compiled for the guidance of the church in a period of immaturity and lack of trained ministers. Knox himself did not use the "Book of Common Order" nor was it required of other ministers to do so. In many parishes in Scotland, owing to the scarcity of ministers in early Reformation days, the services were conducted by "Readers". These "Readers" used to read the Scriptures, offer prayer and preside over the offering of praise, and in doing so, were to use the "Book of Common Order". The employment of "Readers" was for the purpose of meeting the emergency due to the lack of ministers. It was a temporary arrangement.

Apart from these historical facts, it is clear that the Apostolic Church did not use liturgical forms. This is the matter of paramount importance, and apart from all historical considerations, furnishes the necessary conclusive evidence. If a liturgy were essential, then we would find reference to it in the Epistles.

III. Postures in worship
As Christians we must, in the matter of posture in prayer as in other matters follow the guidance of God's Word. It is not to be one of personal likes and dislikes. There exists today a great diversity in the forms observed in Christian worship. This has been occasioned generally by failure to accept the guidance God has given, and much of it, we fear, is of the nature of "will-worship" (Col. 2:23).

Reverting to the synagogue worship, we recognise that the Jews stood to pray. They might or might not, on other occasions, kneel in prayer. Standing was the posture usually adopted when praying. The Lord Jesus said "two men went up into the temple to pray, the one a Pharisee and the other a Publican. . . The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself and the Publican standing afar off would not lift up so much as his eyes to heaven" (Luke 18:10, 13). Also Christ said, "when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any." (Mk. 11:25). Thus we see that standing was the usual posture whether praying in private or in corporate worship. Nevertheless it was not the exclusive method, for Solomon knelt, as well as stood, in prayer at the official opening of the temple (I Kings 8:22, 54). The Apostle Paul declared, "I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Eph. 3:14). Therefore both standing and kneeling in prayer have the divine sanction. The early Christian Church adopted both these postures.

It is interesting and instructive to note that one of the canons of the great Council of Nice which met A.D. 325, decreed that Christians should stand in prayer on the Lord's Day, as expressive of joy and triumph, befitting the day commemorative of the Lord's victory over death and all His adversaries. On other days they were permitted to kneel. However we may view such a decree, the point pertinent to the present subject is that these two, standing and kneeling were the recognised postures in prayer in the fourth century. These two practices were adopted by the churches of the Reformation.

Owing to the current deep ignorance of Reformation attainments and of Scriptural precedents, we may well wonder how many who sit at prayer fail to recognise that Scripture gives no countenance to that practice. Some will reply that it is not the posture of the body but the condition of the soul which is of importance. This is but a half-truth at best. We know that the attitude of the soul is of supreme importance, and this should never be overlooked; but what about the soul's attitude to God's will and divine guidance and institution? In prayer the posture should be such as accords with Scripture, and such as becomes those who worship the infinitely glorious one who is their Creator and the God of their salvation.

IV. The Lord's Day
A feature of the Old Testament typical system was the observance of certain holy days and seasons, such as the Days of Unleavened Bread (the Passover), the Feast of Tabernacles, Pentecost and the Day of Atonement. These had special typical significance, and like the temple and its worship, did not have permanent duration. With the advent of Christ and the bringing in of the Christian dispensation they lost their validity and were abolished. The Sabbath referred to in the Ten Commandments did not form a part of the typical system given by God through Moses to Israel. In the earlier days of human history there was but one holy day, the Sabbath, and all other days of the week were alike, in that none of them was holy. The Apostolic Church returned to the simplicity of the era prior to the inauguration of the types, and observed as holy, only one day in the week. That was the Lord's Day or the Christian Sabbath. Their religious observance of the Lord's Day rests on a foundation much older than the resurrection of Christ. It is based on the law of the Sabbath ordained at the creation. The ordinance designated the Lord's Supper superseded the Passover, and the day, designated in Scripture the Lord's Day, replaced the ancient Sabbath. The Lord's Day is therefore the weekly festival of Christ's resurrection and the one holy day. Christ entered into His rest on the day of His resurrection. Hence, the first day of the week became the Christian Sabbath, i.e., rest day. When Gentile Christians observed the typical days and seasons of the Church of the pre-Christian era, the Apostle Paul protested, "how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days and months and times and years; I am afraid of you lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain." (Gal. IV:9-11). Should any reader demur and say that the observances the Apostle opposed were those of certain days of Christian commemoration, our argument is equally relevant. It is greatly to be regretted that many Christians observe as holy the days called Good Friday and Christmas and the Easter periods. These lack the divine sanction. We are not to add that which God has appointed.

There are misguided Christians who hold that the Sabbath enjoined in the Fourth Commandment was annulled when Christ rose from the dead, and that the Lord's Day is quite a different institution. This view is unscriptural, for it is clear from the Scriptures that the ancient Sabbath was transferred from the seventh to the first day of the week, and was given much richer significance as the Lord's Day, in that it became the divinely appointed memorial of the resurrection of Christ as well as of the Creation. Had the Christian Church rejected all "holy days" of man's appointment, and followed the teaching of the Word of God in observing as holy only the Lord's Day, it is likely that the profanation of the day of divine appointment would be far less prevalent than it is today. The Lord's Day is one of the great divine institutions and was appointed by God to be the special day of rest from toil and to be devoted to man's highest exercise, the worship of the living and true God.

V. Reformation teaching on worship
Since early in the nineteenth century there has been on the part of very many Protestant Churches an increasing dislike for the purity which was generally practised by these churches in earlier years. This was occasioned to a large degree by the adoption of a sceptical attitude to the Scriptures and the consequent decline in Biblical preaching. Even where the divine authorship and reliability of the Scriptures were maintained the emphasis generally was on but a few of the great doctrines of God's Word. This, together with the tendency to treat lightly the duty of obedience to God's revealed will, and the consequent view that man may please himself as to the way he worships God, has led to a rejection of the Scriptural principles regulative of worship. The concepts of humanism have so invaded the province of worship, that many Christians have concluded that modes of worship which are pleasing to men are necessarily acceptable to God. Thus many churches refuse to seek any guidance from God's Word concerning their worship. Yet these churches originally stemmed from the Churches of the Reformation. Their views of worship are utterly alien to the teachings of Scripture and to the Reformed concept of the Scriptural principles of worship as expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646): "The acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His Own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture" (Chap. XXI, Section 1).

Dr. A. A. Hodge made the following pertinent comments: "Since God has prescribed the mode in which we are acceptably to worship and serve Him, it must be an offence to Him and a sin in us for us either to neglect His way, or in preference to practise our own. . . we have in no case any right, upon the ground of taste, fashion or expediency, to go beyond the clear warrant of Scripture" (A Handbook on the Confession of Faith pp. 271-2).

As for the content of worship, the same chapter in the Confession defines praise as "the singing of Psalms with grace in the heart."