You reply, “I presume it was expected you should either continue at your college, or enter upon some regular cure.”――――Perhaps so; but I must still insist, that if my sacerdotal powers had been then _expresly limited_ to _that congregation_ whereunto I should be _appointed_, my ordination would have _signified nothing_. I mean, I could never, in virtue of that ordination, have exercised those powers at all: seeing I never was appointed to any single congregation: at least, not till I went to _Georgia_.
I answered, 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 _Glocestershire_ or _Worcestershire_: in _Lancashire_, _Yorkshire_, or _Lincolnshire_. Nor did the strictest disciplinarian scruple suffering me to exercise those powers wherever I came.”
You reply, _There is great difference between preaching occasionally ――――with the leave of the incumbent, and doing it constantly without their leave_. I grant there is; and there are objections to the latter, which do not reach the former case. But they do not belong to this head. They do not in the least affect this consequence, “If every priest, when ordained, is _expresly limited_, touching the exercise of the power then received, to _that congregation_ to which he shall be appointed; then is he precluded by this _express limitation_, from preaching, with or without the incumbent’s leave, in _any other congregation_ whatever.”
I answered, 4. “Is it not, in fact, universally allowed, that every priest, as such, has a power, in virtue of his ordination, to preach ――――in any congregation, where the curate desires his assistance?”
You reply to this by what you judge a ♦parallel case. But it does not touch the _restriction_ in question. Either this does, or does not _expresly limit_ the exercise of the powers conferred upon a priest in his ordination, to _that congregation_ whereunto he shall be appointed. If it does not, I am not condemned by this; however faulty I may be on a thousand other accounts. If it does, then is every priest condemned who ever preaches out of the _congregation to which he is appointed_.
♦ “parellel” replaced with “parallel”
Your parallel case is this――――_Because a man does not offend against the law of the land, when I prevail upon him to teach my children_. ――――Therefore _he is impowered to seize_ (read, he does not offend against the law of the land in seizing) _an apartment in my house, and against my will and approbation to continue therein, and to direct and dictate to my family_! page 11.
An exact parallel indeed!――――When therefore I came to live in St. _Luke_’s parish, was it just the same thing as if I had _seized an apartment in Dr._ Buckley’s _house_? And was the _continuing therein against his will and approbation_ (supposing it were so) precisely the same, as if I had continued _in his house_, whether he would or no? Is the one exactly the same _offence against the law of the land_ as the other? Once more. Is the warning _sinners_ in _Moorfields_, to flee from the wrath to come, the very same with directing the Dr.’s _family, under his own roof_?――――I should not have answered this, but that I was afraid you would conclude, it was unanswerable.
I answered the former objector, 5. “Before those words which you suppose to imply such a restraint――――were those spoken without any restraint or limitation at all, which I apprehend to convey an indelible character, receive the Holy Ghost, for the office and work of a priest in the church of God, now committed unto thee, by the imposition of our hands.”
You reply, _The question is not, whether you are in orders, or not_? page 12.――――I am glad to hear it. I really thought it was.――――_But whether you have acted suitably to the directions or rules of the church of_ England.――――Not suitably to that rule, if it were strictly to be interpreted, of preaching only in a single congregation. But I have given my reasons, why I think it cannot be so interpreted. And those reasons I do not see that you have invalidated.
I would only add, If I am in orders, if I am a minister still, and yet not a minister of the church of _England_, of what church am I a minister? Whoever is a minister at all, is a minister of some particular church. Neither can he cease to be a minister of that church, till he is cast out of it by a judicial sentence. Till therefore I am so cast out (which I trust will never be) I must stile myself, a minister of the church of _England_.
6. Your next objection is, _You not only erect bands, which, after the_ Moravians, _you call the united society_, but also _give out tickets to those that continue therein_.――――These bands, you think, _have had very bad consequences――――as was to be expected――――when weak people――――are made leaders――――of their brethren, and are set upon expounding scripture_.――――Ibid.