The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1875-12-22
For TIE CENTRAL PREsBYTERIAN
MISSION.

doubtless the opinion last expressed is th'
one by which be is to be judged-that is, hi
seems opposed to "demissiOn." He ia cor
rect in the idea that ordination does not con
fer grace, but only recognizes the ambassa
dor whom God has SCALED" As to the tr
revocable nature of that call, let it be noticed
1. Tie case is as "W. NJ. I. states it
"Neither is it any part of the doctrine Of
our Church that when God calls man tc
the ministry, he covenants that he shall en-
Joy an immunity from the ills flesh is heir
to-, and be elevated above the physical in.
frmities of our fallen nature" Here then
is the doctrine, plainly stated that He who
gave the call may revoke it without dispar-
agement to him to whom it had been given.
The call is for a specific purpose 1t is not
mere form. 1t is not intended merely to
give man title which he shall wear all bis
life. But God calls to the mioistry this one
and that, an order that he may exercise and
discharge the duties of the s0Ork If this be
not true, of what use is the call? Then "the
minister accepts the Office and assumes the
vows, subject to the inscrutable dealings OF
Gods providence with all his intelligent crea
lures as well as with bis Church. And when,
in His infinite wisdom, He ffljcts with disease
one whom He has called by his Spirit into
the ministry, or deprives him of his voice,
what course is there for the man, or the
church, but humble and unmurmuring sub,
mission to the decree of God? Nothing
else of course. If we say to God" This
call shall never be revoked, but is binding
for life, He in such case replies by His
irresistible providence, 81 hare revoked 1t. j"
For what was the call? "To stand as an
ambassador of Christ, to beseech sinners to
be reconciled to God" And can we contend
against the decree which has made it impos
sible for the man thus to stand The case
of which we speak is not like Paul's. He
had "a thorn in the flesh it is true. No
one can say what it was. But We all know
that 1t was not an affection of such nature as
tc 9is9uality ham for the duties of the office
to which God bad called him. He suffered
from it. But he could suffer and yet work.
And thus far his example is worthy of imi-
tation. But We cannot cite this as an argu-
ment that any one whom God has actually
disabled, SO that though he suffers he cannot
work, should still continue as one called TO
the ministry. The one case has nothing to
do with the other. "Jonah" was discour-
aged and fearful, not really disabled physi.
cslly or mentally. And his case does not
touch the matter in hand. We are discussing
a matter of positive disabling. And if the
supposed irrevocable nature of the miniSte.
rial flee" arises from the recognized fact
that the man has been called by the Spirit
of God to preach the Gospel of His grace tc
dying sinners, what becomes of that fact
after God has made it impossible that the
man hall preach? 1t no longer exists
Therefore how can it be recognized? p? W.
cannot recognize that which has no existence
Once it was. Now it is not. God has re
voked His call as evidently (or more So) al
He at first gave it. What is left but to sub
NIT, accepting His dealing in the latter al
we'll as in the first instance?
2. Whence the irrevocableness Conc
minister always minister" some say
Where does the idea come from? We wan
THUS saith the Lord" for recognizing
mans call. We think we have it in "th
recognized fac" of his CALL God has spoker
to his heart. He tells US 80. We conside
his case, pronounce upon it and ordain him
Can God never speak to his heart again
If in the first case we believe his testimony
are we to refuse it in the second, when b
says" God has spoken to me, and | al
solemnly convinced that, because of Hi
providence, should cease to be minister Z
Such disability as that of which We SPEAK
is as evident message from God, as the frt
calling was. And it is as open to the reco&
milton of all as was the call, nay more openl
evident. Who can deny it. A fact is nc
removed by denying it.
But as at first, all that the Church can d
is to approve Gods call, so afterwards sh
can do no more than approve His proVidenc
The irrevoCableness of the ministerial ofi(
as held By any one man, is mere idea. l
origin is absolutely and perfectly humal
God has in no place taught it. Let him wi
can, show "Thus saith the Lord for i
No such thing can be produced. Rome h'
her irrevocable VOWS. Do we approve h
doctrines? If God has not thus bound
mans conscience, can We do it The pl
F that some may causelessly demit the ministl
can be governed by the same wisdom whi'
acts upon the first evidences of the CALL
And it is most responsible thing to cOntin'
man in the ministry, in the absence of L
vine authority, when he says" Set me FIRE
o The Office 1 am no longer able to hold. Y
t see it is so. 1t is now clog and burden
t me-"
0 8. Much is said about our "Form of Ga
: ernment" and the actions of Assemblies