How then come “the bishops and clergy, to _countenance_ and _encourage_” unlawful assemblies? If it be said, “They meet in a private, inoffensive way;” that is nothing to the point in hand. If those meetings are _unlawful_ in themselves, all their inoffensiveness will not make them lawful. “O, but they behave with modesty and decency.” Very well; but the law! What is that to the law? There can be no solid defence but this: They are not _dissenters_ from the church; therefore they _cannot use_, and they do _not need_ the act of toleration. And their meetings are not seditious; therefore the statute against seditious meetings does not affect them.
The application is obvious. If our meetings are illegal, so are theirs also. But if this plea be good (as doubtless it is) in the one case, it is good in the other also.
9. You propose another objection to our _manner_ of preaching, in the second part of the _observations_. The substance of it I will repeat, and answer as briefly as I can.
“They run up and down from place to place, and from county to county:” that is, _they preach in several places_. This is undoubtedly true. “They draw after them confused multitudes of people:” that is, “_Many come to hear them_.” This is true also. “But they would do well to remember, God is not the author of _confusion_ or of _tumult_, but of peace.” I trust we do: nor is there any _confusion_ or _tumult_ at all, in our largest congregations; unless at some rare times when the sons of _Belial_ mix therewith, on purpose to disturb the _peaceable_ worshippers of God.
“But our church has provided against this preaching up and down, in the ordination of a priest, by expressly limiting the exercise of the powers then conferred upon him, to _the congregation where he shall be lawfully appointed thereunto_.”
I answer, 1. Your argument proves too much. If it be allowed just as you propose it, it proves, That no priest has authority, either to preach or minister the sacraments, in any other than his own congregation.
2. Had the powers conferred been _so limited_ when I was ordained priest, my ordination would have signified just nothing. For I was not _appointed to any congregation_ at all: but was ordained as a member of that “College of divines,” (so our statutes express it) “founded to overturn all heresies; and defend the Catholic faith.”
3. For many years after I was ordained priest, this _limitation_ was never heard of. I heard not one syllable of it, by way of objection, to my preaching up and down in _Oxford_ or _London_, or the parts adjacent, in _Gloucestershire_, or _Worcestershire_; _Lancashire_, _Yorkshire_ or _Lincolnshire_. Nor did the strictest disciplinarian scruple suffering me to exercise those powers wherever I came.
4. And in fact, Is it not universally allowed, that every priest, as such, has a power, in virtue of his ordination, either to preach or to administer the sacraments, in any congregation, ♦wherever the rector or curate desires his assistance? Does not every one then, see through this thin pretence?
♦ “whereever” replaced with “wherever”
10. “The bishops and universities indeed have power to grant licences to _Itinerants_. But the church has provided in _that_ case; They are not to preach in any church (Canon 50.) till they shew their licence.”
The church has well provided in _that_ case. But what has _that_ case to do with the case of common clergymen? Only so much as to shew, how grossly this canon has been abused, at _Islington_ in particular: where the churchwardens were instructed to hinder, by main force, the priest whom the vicar himself had appointed, from preaching, and to quote this canon; which, as you plainly shew, belongs to quite another thing.
In the note you add, “Mr. _Wesley_ being asked, By what authority he preached, replied, By the authority of Jesus Christ conveyed to me by the (now) archbishop of _Canterbury_, when he laid his hands upon me and said, Take thou authority to preach the gospel. In this reply he thought fit, for a plain reason, to leave out _this latter part_ of the commission: for that would have shewn his reader, the _restraint_ and _limitation_, under which the exercise of the power is granted.” Nay, I did not _print the latter part_ of the words, for a plainer reason, because I did not _speak_ them. And I did not _speak_ them then, because they did not come into my mind. Tho’ probably if they had, I should not have spoken them: it being my only concern, to answer the question proposed, in as few words as I could.