Puritans, preachers & preaching.

Preaching out of bounds & lay-preaching are by-products of the Evangelical Revival. It happens when the organised church isn't doing its job properly. Today's church is fragmented, its ministry increasingly unregulated and what passes for sound preaching and competent ministry is, to say the least, variegated. There has also been a noticeable increase in the number of men calling themselves pastor and evangelists, who have received little or no training. It could be argued that in a period of decline an irregular ministry might be the church's life line.

The Puritans, confronted a similar scenario in a different way. In the preface to his discussion of the Westminster Assembly's debates on preachers and preaching Van Dixhoorn says that 'in a rare display of initiative', the Assembly 'determined that preaching was important enough and bad preaching common enough that some directives were necessary.' (Pastors, and Ambassadors: Puritan Wisdom for Today's Church: (St Antolin Lectures, Vol 2. 2002-10 - Latimer Trust)

The bad preachers were incompetent lay-readers drafted in to deal with the problem created by absentee clergy. John Penry, (Martin Marprelate) wrote to queen Elizabeth describing non-resident ministers as “odious in the sight of God and man” because they kept the people from “the ordinary means of salvation, which is the word preached.” According to Strype, it was “the want of clergymen” that created the “inconvenience” of ordaining “illiterate men to be readers, which likewise many were offended at” (Annals, 1824, 265).

The radicals also contributed. Whether ordained or unordained, they threatened chaos by  unregulated preaching. George Gillespie wrote, 'Every man may not be a teacher ...' teaching 'is no part of the general calling of Christians.' For him, Romans 10:15 was critical - 'how shall they preach unless they are sent?' He argued that 'sending' denotes a sender and no one should presume to teach who has not been sent. In his case 'sending' was to be understood ecclesiastically, presbyterially and congregationally – all in one. Also, on the basis of 2 Timothy 2:2, a candidate for the ministry ought to have been taught by one someone experienced in the calling - faithful men, 'who will be able to teach others also'.

Some, like the antinomian William Dell, were opposed to every kind of authority: church, university (although he had been master of Gonville & Caius at Cambridge) and especially assemblies. To him Westminster Assembly was odious: 'What a sad thing is it' he asked 'when men look for their teaching no further than men? They only look to the minister or to such an able, learned, orthodox man - as they phrase it - or at the highest to the Assembly. And what they shall teach them, they are resolved to stand by it and build upon it for their foundation. In the mean time never regarding in truth the teaching of God, but say, What! can so many grave, learned, godly men err? And shall not we believe what they determine? Why now, these are none of the children of the spiritual Church, for they neither have God's teaching nor care for it. But the spiritual Church is all taught of God.' (Of the Spiritual Church, 101).  Such men equated the liberty of the Spirit with a kind of Do-It-Yourself approach to preaching. Thus it was that from the end of the Elizabethan period into the period of the Stuarts, that the church laboured under ignorant and antinomian preacher. The Puritans did not say 'ah well, something is better than nothing' but believed that following biblical principle is to the church's advantage. They therefore concurred with Calvin's view that “Those that intrude themselves confidently [into the ministry], and in a spirit much elated, or who discharge the ministry of the word with an easy mind, as though they were equal to the task, are ignorant at once of themselves and of the task.” (Commentary 1 Cor 9) .

For these reasons they routinely differentiated between 'lawful' and 'unlawful' ministers. William Gouge, in his reflection on 2 Cor 5:20 'we are ambassadors of Christ', describes preaching as "a clear revelation (exposition) of the mystery of salvation by a lawful minister." William Perkins said that preaching is to be of "the word of God alone ... in its perfection and inner consistency" done by one set apart "according to the rule of God’s word...." [Prophesying, 9, BT] The inward call to the ministry had to be recognised and confirmed by the outward call of the church. Perkins' words to aspiring preachers are “Your conscience must judge of your willingness and the church of your ability.”

As to the way of setting a minister apart, the Independents, less convinced about the necessity of ordination by the laying on of hands, tended to equate a 'call' issued by a congregation with a kind of formal commissioning. But as to the general point about 'lawful' ministers, they and the Presbyterians were more or less on the same page. The order of Acts 13, where the Holy Spirit works through the church to set apart men for the ministry was the pattern to follow. Their perspective included gifting (together with training), calling & sending. In effect, it was a method of 'quality control' to safeguard the gospel and the church.