To the Editor of the Chinese Recorder.

1899 301 {This letter, not acceptable in China, is here given, a little abridged.}

Dear Sir,

It is evident that the ecclesiastical position in China is exercising the minds of not a few, and that some are dissatisfied with what surrounds them, not as to practice only but as to foundation principles. Mr. Hawks Pott says, "There is one thing about the church of apostolic times in sad contrast with the church in China today. Then the church was one; now it is divided and rent asunder." I suppose he meant to say "There is one thing about the church in China [indeed everywhere] today in sad contrast with the church of apostolic times." Undoubtedly the united church of apostolic times was as right, as the divided church of today is wrong. Do we gain anything by closing our eyes to so sure and sad a fact?

Mr. Hudson Taylor is reported to have said at the Kuling Conference, "Had he the power tomake all flowers green, he would not care to use that power; or were he able to pierce the eye and make an ear of it, he did not think he could improve the present arrangement by so doing. Unity involves diversity, as shown by the diverse members of one body, though all animated by one spirit." Is this serious? Is it not a self-excusing play of words? The application of such language as this to the present situation is an easy way of getting rid of positive departure from God's word and will.

Some cannot look at things thus lightly: God's truth and glory are too deeply concerned. Variety in the colours of flowers is from God. The different functions of the eye and the ear are from the first established by the Creator. So it is organically in the church, which man dislikes and dislocates. "In [the power of] one Spirit we were all baptised into one body." The scriptural principle of unity with diversity does apply to the body of Christ. "We being many are one bread, one body, for we all partake of the one bread." Scripture recognises but one communion. How then does this sanction distinct denominations, and separate communions? Is it not a bold misuse of the aim and argument of inspiration? God is not the author of confusion. We are not entitled to impute to Him the scattered condition of Christ's members today, to the ruin of expressing His one body. Does it not become us to confess and grieve over the existence of a manifest evil? It is always a spiritual loss when we close our eyes to facts as they are. Let us be assured that the safe ground to take is to read, not the word of God in the dark of our circumstances, but our circumstances in the light of the word. God is not mocked.

Is it further said that "the church at Jerusalem was the mother church, with whom all other churches were in communion?" Because of this fact and others, with principles still deeper, some of us cannot recognise a passing intercommunion of Christians from the various denominations, as adequately meeting God's will, or the due privilege of His children. It is a compromise, not a scriptural expression, of the one body of Christ. Denominationalism according to God's word is utterly bad; but pan-denominationalism is even worse, for it allows and maintains the guilty division, while the new device shows that division is not really approved. It teaches Christians to be habitually separated from other Christians; yet it occasionally proclaims that we ought not to be separated from them. Is it an open question left for us to answer as we please? Is it not most inconsistent, as the rule to tolerate separate communions, and yet to commune now and then with those from whom we are outwardly separated? What can one think of page 63? "I said an exact imitation of the apostolic church would be unwise; my reason for so saying is because the apostolic church was a time of germination; Christianity had not then, nor has it yet, reached its full and complete development. The more we study those early days, the more we are led to see that nothing was as yet crystallized; doctrine, church government, and worship all were in the formative state."

Such language as this is worthy of the author of "Apologia pro vita sua." We may be quite sure that any "doctrine" any "church government," any "worship" not found in the apostolic writings is wrong now. May I suggest that this continuous development of "doctrine," "church government," and "worship," which "has not reached its full development yet," is the main cause of three-fourths of the division in the church today which all Christians should deplore? It is refreshing to turn to 2 Tim. 3:16-17, and read, "Every scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto every good work."

If the sound doctrine, the God-given system of church government, and the true character of Christian worship are not in the apostolic scriptures, where are they to be found? The same writer says, "The word apostle is used in a two-fold sense in the New Testament sometimes it refers to missionaries but it has also a narrower and more restricted use, that is, it is the name applied to the twelve and their successors."

He believes then in apostolic succession! But he does not tell us who these successors were, or who they are, whether there were twelve lines, or only one. But we know that Peter did not expect one; for he tells us in his second and last Epistle, chap. 1:15, "I will give diligence that at every time ye may be able after my decease to call these things to remembrance." Not a word is here about a personal successor, but everything to show that the apostle of the circumcision meant his writings to take that place. The apostle Paul too makes it quite clear, in Acts 20:29, what kind of persons were to be expected after him. "I know that after my departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves shall men arise speaking perverse things." Does this look like either apostolic succession, or desirable development of doctrine? The apostle adds, "And now I commend you to God (not to man), and to the word of His grace (not to developed doctrine), which (word of His grace) is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them that are sanctified." Happily it is within easy reach of all in these days to know what rubbish the (so-called) early fathers taught.

1899 318 As we are told, "the origin of the Episcopate seems lost in obscurity" (just, because it is not found in scripture); whilst it is added, that shortly after the time of the apostles it became the unifying principle of the Christian church. Yet, says he, "the unifying factor is just what is absent now." If scripture is to be heard, and if we may reverently use the words, it is the Holy Spirit Who thus acts: and, thanks be to God, He is not "absent now," but abides with and in us for ever. This word "By one Spirit were we all baptized into one body" shows Him to be the true unifying power; and I am glad to see that all do not agree with the assumption that the "charismata" (or gifts) have all disappeared.

Another writer, it may be observed, directs our attention to 1 Corinthians 14. , as a "practical model for the present time." If the saints of God followed the teaching of that Epistle, many of the present difficulties would disappear. That miracles may cease is another matter; but alas for us, if these gifts have all gone! "For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit." How could we possibly get on without these? The word of wisdom and the word of knowledge are vital parts of the "charismata"; but it is to be observed that these are distributed "by the Spirit." What necessary connection have they with a divinity degree, or a mind powerful and cultivated? "If any man speak, [let him speak] as oracles of God."

Scripture is plain, not obscure. We read in Eph. 4:8, "when He ascended up on high … He gave gifts to men": next we are told, the gifts are, "some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers." But we read in verse 13 that these gifts were given, "till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." As we have not all reached this happy consummation yet, we may be sure that the domata (that is, the persons gifted), and the charismata (that is, the gifts received), like the Holy Spirit Himself, Who is the Giver, are still present in the church of God. But one can understand that to those who do not accept this as a present truth, on the authority of God's word, they may seem to have disappeared. As to the "apostles and prophets," they laid the foundation so well, that it abides in their inspired writings. It does not need to be laid again. Are not evangelists, and pastors and teachers still given by the church's Head?

By the words, "the Spirit will lead you into all truth," we are told that Christ Himself "thus foretold the progressive development of His religion!" Now is this the Lord's meaning? Is it a sound interpretation of His words? Is it not an untruth to glorify man? We must remember that these words were spoken primarily to the apostles, before the Holy Spirit was given; that they were fulfilled after Pentecost within their lifetime; and that "all truth" was committed unto them, that we might believe through their word. The faith was "once for all" delivered to the saints.

He says on page 74, "I believe God's Holy Spirit led the apostles to a clearer understanding of the teaching of Christ; but yet I cannot think that all that was apostolic (teaching, I presume) was in co mplete harmony with the mind of the Master." Now, we must be allowed to claim that their teachings are the truth, they are "words which the Holy Ghost teacheth," "they are the commandment of the Lord." In doubting their "complete harmony with the mind of the Master," he thus sets himself up to judge the apostles, and denies the divine authority of scripture.

Kindly bear with strong dissent from the tract in Chinese by Pastor P. Krauz, for I must testify the truth. On page 12 of its English translation I read these words, "Before Jesus there were in Judea the prophets; China had Confucius, who corresponded to the prophets of that time who prophesied of the doctrine of the world's salvation" etc. Does not this remind one of the shameless Oxford Essays and Reviews? It is indeed very true to say that the Jewish prophets prophesied of the Saviour. But Confucius never prophesied of "the doctrine of the world's salvation." The Jewish prophets burst forth into rapturous song in view of Messiah's coming glories, of righteousness and salvation too. The Spirit of Christ in them testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that should follow. Instead of this, Confucius sorrows as those who have no hope. Were we to tell the Chinese that Confucius corresponds to the Jewish prophets who prophesied of a Saviour to the ends of the earth, they would reply, and would be justified in replying, "Then the Jewish prophets must have been all wrong; for Confucius, whom you own as prophet, says nothing about such a Saviour."

Nay, this effort to humour China by installing Confucius among the Jewish prophets, is directly opposed to the divine teaching of the New Testament about the Jews and Gentiles. The Chinese are not Jews. The apostle is very clear in the early chapters of Romans as to the place God gave to the Jew. "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there in circumcision? Much every way, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God" (Rom. 3:1). Further on, it is shown that, as to the Jews, "the gifts and calling of God are without repentance."

Now are the Confucian analects, etc. "the oracles of God"? If so, the Jew has no advantage over the Chinese. Has that pastor considered where his principle of "correspondence" lands him? Besides, the tract contradicts itself; for the writer gives us no end of "mistakes" and "insufficiencies" on the part of Confucius. Surely he did not thus mean like the neo-critics to insinuate like "mistakes and insufficiencies" of Jewish prophets, did he? Logically from his tract the Chinese might look for such failures in the prophets of the O.T. Now it is taught authoritatively in Rom. 2:1, that every man who has a moral judgment of right, and acts wrongly, is without excuse. "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest." Being able to discern right from wrong, and yet doing the wrong, is to condemn ourselves. "For as many as sinned without the law shall perish also without law, and as many as sinned In law shall be judged by law." Will it not be righteous?

Confucius might perhaps be compared to Socrates. But who can imagine Paul, or rather the Holy Spirit, saying that Socrates or Confucius corresponded with the Jewish prophets? If you compare Confucius with his nearest contemporary Jewish prophet, he was laying the foundation for the worship of the dead, while Daniel was being cast to the lions for refusing to worship idols. A few words from 1 Cor. 1:10, etc., dispose completely of Gentile philosophy, whether Greek or Chinese. "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this age? Did not God make foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." In a British Court of Law a witness is responsible before God "to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Much more responsible is every Christian preacher and teacher in China.

When the proper inspiration of the scriptures is undermined, and man's development of the church is made to take the place of God's word, when heathen philosophy is put on a level with Jewish prophecy, to the baseless and mischievous elevation of the one, and to the virtual degradation of the other, is it not time to raise a note of alarm?

I remain, Yours in the Master's Service, Thos. Hutton.

Hsin Hwa, Chinkiang. 25th Feb., 1899.