The restoration of the original gospel and worship has not only to contend against the fierce assaults of its unmasked opposers, but against the treachery and delinquency of some of its professed friends and advocates. I do not say that any thing new or strange has happened to it in being thus betrayed into the hands of its enemies; for since the days of Judas, who sold his Master for fifteen dollars, till now, there have not been wanting those who assumed the garb of Christianity for the sake of making provision for the lusts of the flesh.

      Men without the fear of God and love for the Saviour, have been found in the camp of Israel, not only wearing the armorial of the faith, but professedly fighting the battles of the Lord. It does not follow that the arrows of truth, though despatched from their bow, will not reach, nor pierce the hearts of the King's enemies. Judas, for all that appears to the contrary, when sent by the Messiah to announce the approaching reign, was just as successful in proclaiming the Word as any of the Twelve. We sometimes mistake when we appeal to what is called the usefulness of men, or their success in preaching the word, as evidence that the Lord is with them. Neither the word of God nor the ordinances of the gospel derive their virtue or influence from him that administers them. Balaam, the son of Beor, said many excellent things by the Spirit of God: so did Saul, the son of Kish; yet the former loved the wages of unrighteousness, and the latter was a rebel against the God of his father. Neither talent, nor usefulness, nor great success are to be plead in the absence of justice, humanity, purity, and the love of God. An immoral person is not to be trusted, [281] countenanced, or sustained as a preacher of righteousness, if he had the zeal of Paul and the eloquence of Apollos.

      It was not without good reason, and a perfect knowledge of human. nature, that the Holy Spirit in Paul testified against the elevation of men to office, among citizens of heaven, destitute of well-earned reputation. I do not merely allude to the inhibition of all novices from public stations, nor to his injunction that the servants of the congregation should be first well proved and found to be faithful men; but to his orders that a bishop must be blameless, and of high standing as to moral worth, deserving a good character even of the aliens themselves.

      Now the question is, Are the brethren of the Restoration attentive to the apostolic injunctions and to the dictates of good reason in making their selections, and in sustaining only those of good fame? While we are happy to discover a growing and increasing attention to this all-important matter, we are not without evidence that in several places there is a very great remissness on the subject.

      I know of one proclaimer now sustained by some brethren in the counties of Stark, Holmes, and Wayne, Ohio, and probably in other regions, who declares himself irresponsible to man. God made him a minister, and none but God can depose him. And yet his character is not so godlike as to remove all suspicions on the subject of his divine mission. He has been accused of a high offense against the laws of the state of Ohio, as well as of great inattention to the eighteenth verse of the seventh chapter of Paul's 1st Epistle to the Corinthians. But the brethren say he has confessed his fault and asked forgiveness from God, and God has forgiven him, and they ought to forgive him. Others say he has at one time confessed, and at another so extenuated and neutralized his confessions as to make it a very little sin. But the brethren say God has forgiven him and they ought! How do they know God has forgiven him for the injury that he has done to the name and honor of his Son--for representing Christ as the minister of sin, and the patron of lasciviousness? Has he evinced contrition, shame, and unfeigned penitence? Has he humbled himself before God and the people by taking the back seat? or has he professed to be above law, above all responsibility to his brethren? and does he force himself upon the brethren--divide churches on the very ground that they are unwilling to fellowship one who has brought disgrace upon their own confession of the faith? I ask, Are these the evidences of his repentance, and that God has forgiven him? Then I must read the Old Testament and the New over again; moreover, I must unlearn all that I have learned of human nature.

      To see a professed preacher of truth and purity outbraving all discipline, defying the authority of the congregation, incensed at those [282] who will not countenance him in his course, and denouncing brethren because they are conscientious in obeying the precept found in 1. Cor. v. 11 is, to me, a new sort of evidence that God has forgiven him!

      But if God had forgiven him, and the brethren too, does it follow that he must be elevated to the place from which he fell? Does he ask this as proof that they have forgiven him? If he do, he is greatly at fault indeed! The Lord forgave Moses for a hasty work and action, but he would not suffer him to lead Israel into Canaan. Let the brethren forgive upon good evidence of contrition and reformation; but they cannot restore the forgiven to any conspicuity in the congregation, if they have respect either to precept or example; for he that occupies a high station in the church must be blameless and free from bad fame as respects the common sense and common law of civilized society; moreover, he must "have a good report of those that are without."

      But what have the brethren to do to sustain a person who boasts that he will not be responsible to them? This I heard the gentleman in question say, and numbers have said that he thus expressed himself to them. The greatest despot in East or West can say no more. Neither King, Pope, nor Priest can assume more. And if for no other fault nor arrogancy than this, such a one is not to be countenanced by any man who believes that all officers are servants of the people and responsible to them.

      I would not have noticed, at this time, this unhappy case, had it not been that I am just returned from a visit to the theatre of these lawless assumptions, and that to abstract the attention of the brethren from the question of righteousness and purity, other questions have been got up by this gentleman--such as "the ordinance of washing the saints' feet," and "the right of females to preach"--greatly to the disturbance of the churches, and injury to the cause.

      I have not as yet named this gentleman, affording him space for reformation; and if it had not been that I fear God more than man, I should not have hazarded what I have done: for unless he, i deed, repent of his follies and transgressions of the laws of Christ, I have reason to fear that I shall not fare well in the tender mercies of his tongue. But I dare no longer be silent in such a case.

      Unless the brethren are more circumspect in those they elevate to honor in the church, and in receiving and sustaining only such persons as are well recommended to them by persons of credit, the cause will continue to suffer by the incursions of wolves in sheep's clothing. We have much to say on this subject, but must defer it to a more convenient season.

[A. C.]      
Vol. 1834, pages 614-16. [382]      

Source:

Alexander Campbell. "Irresponsible Preachers." The Millennial Harbinger 5 (December 1834): 614-617.

[MHA2 277-281]