Quo warranto, or, A moderate enquiry into the warrantablenesse of the preaching of gifted and unordained persons where also some other questions are discussed : viz. concerning [brace] ministerial relation, election, ordination : being a vindication of the late Jus divinum ministerii evangeliei ... from the exceptions of Mr. John Martin, Mr. Sam. Pette, Mr. Frederick Woodal ... in their late book, intituled The preacher sent / by Matthew Poole ...

CHAP. IV.

THe principall Question is this:

Whether Gifted persons may preach ordinarily with∣out Ordination.

State of the Question.

I shall not need to take much pains about the stating of the Question, that being fully done in the Assemblies. Book. These things only I shall say,

1. We speak of persons truly gifted, not every one that conceits himself to be gifted; not of them, who, how∣ever in their own conceits they are gifted, yet indeed have need to be instructed in the Principles of Religion: And that is the true case of many of our gifted preachers in England: For such our Brethren say they do not plead, and yet I cannot tell what to make of this, if it look not that way, when they say, Though one that is really gifted, for ought we know may lawfully preach without approbati∣on, from the Church or others, yet it may be inexpedient; so that hereby it is left to every man (as to the lawfulnesse of it) to judge of his gifts, and to preach, if he think him∣self fit. This also must be said, that the assertion of this Doctrine was that which opened the gap unto all that crew, and which hath been the unhappy occasion of involving this poor Church and Nation in those crouds of errors and confusion which are now too rise amongst us.

2. We dispute not what may be done in cases of ne∣cessity, either in preaching to Heathens, &c. or in preach∣ing in order to trial, (which is necessary to take an ac∣count of a mans sufficiency for the Work.)

3. We do not in this place restrain Ordination to our

way of Ordination: Whether it belongs to the Presby∣tery or to the people to ordain, we are not concerned in this Question, which is barely this: Whether a solemn mission or setting apart be necessary for a mans ordinary preaching? Our Brethren deny. We affirm.

But for the full understanding of the Question, I refer the Reader to our Ius Divinum; wherein, because out Brethren acquarrell some things, I shall take notice of what deserves Animadversion.

The main thing is this, They find fault with the defi∣nition given of Preaching, and they say, Any publishing, opening or applying Gospel-truths to any persons for the uses and ends they serve to, yea though it be but to a single person, is Preaching. By this rule we are all Preachers, bond and free, male and female, wise and unwise, seeing this is fre∣quently done by persons of all sorts, and in this sense, both men and women are said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, such preaching we dispute not against, but enjoyn it to people of all sorts. In that sense we do, as Moses, wish that all the Lords people were Prophets: This is that which upon all occasions we press private Christians to; that they would instruct the igno∣rant, admonish the unruly, &c. privately. And truly this businesse conscienciously managed, would so take up the gifts and time of most Christians, that they would never be charged at the last day for wrapping their Talents in a napkin, though they never assumed the publick work of the Ministry.

It is then publick Preaching that we dispute against, we will not quarrell about words: If that shall be Preaching which our Brethren will call so, be it so; then in that sense we dispute not against Preaching, but Preaching publikely.

There is another thing which they cannot digest, to wit, the distinction which we made between Preaching, and

the speaking of a General to his Army, &c. wherein the object is a Congregation, not sacred, but meerly civil, &c. To this they say, It is preaching, though the object of it be a Congregation not sacred, but prophane and Idolatrous, for Infidels are to be preached to: And if the General of an Ar∣my open and apply Scriptures, not for a civil end chiefly, but for the instruction and edification of those he speaks to, and this, not in an intermixed way to qualifie civil actions, how this can be denied to be preaching, we know not.

To which I Reply, 1. In that case we must distinguish between finis operis, and finis operantis; the end of the work in its own nature, and the end of the worker. Sup∣pose a Philosophy Professor is reading a Philosophicall Lecture of the existence of God, or the immortality of the soul, (wherein he takes occasion to open and apply divers Scriptures) possibly he being a good man, may aim at the spiritual and eternal good of his hearers, yet none will call this preaching, because though the end of the Reader was, their salvation, yet the end of the Read∣ing was quite of another nature. So if a religious General in speaking to his Army, when going to fight, princi∣pally aims at the salvation of their souls, yet this is not preaching; for though his end in speaking be their salva∣tion, yet indeed the end of the work in it self (and that is it by which all actions must be estimated, for the end of the actors may be various and infinite) I say, the end of the work is to encourage them to the battel.

2. A company of Heathens met together in the case supposed, though they are not a sacred Congregation, yet the end of their meeting (suppose to hear Paul preach to them) is sacred, I mean, the end of the work, though not the end of the workers; and however it is with the hearers, yet the end of the actor or speaker is purely and solely the salvation of their souls; and so it is truly,

and may properly be called Preaching.

3. But in this case, I say, a General may not publickly open and apply Scriptures to his Army, unlesse in a case of necessity, or in order to a civil end, i. e. their encourage∣ment to battel.

There is one thing more in the stating of the Question, which they trouble themselves much about, concerning our sense in the use of that phrase of authoritative preach∣ing, and how they tell us, that Authority is sometimes ta∣ken for a right or power to do some publick work; sometimes for the majesty▪ fervor and gravity which is to attend the dispensation of the Gospel; sometimes for that power which an Officer hath over his people; and (say they) we judge that our Brethren take authoritative preaching in this sense, because they oppose it to brotherly charitative preaching. But this is to seek a knot in a bulrush, for our meaning was sufficiently plain, and we did not speak of an autho∣ritative preaching, as if we did allow any publick preach∣ing which is not authoritative, but only put it as a cha∣racter of, and convertible with publick preaching (unlesse in cases of necessity) and so the Assembly expressed them∣selves clearly and fully; We distinguish, say they, between a private, brotherly teaching, &c. and an authoritative pub∣lick-teaching.

And this is all I shall say for the stating of the Question, which now I come to discusse, and I shall do it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in this method:

1. I shall propound and Answer their Arguments.

2. I shall propound and Vindicate our Arguments. And this method (though somewhat preposterous) I chuse, because I would follow the order of their book as farre as I can with any conveniency.