The public then is entirely safe, if it be in no other danger than arises from field-preaching.
7. There is one other sentence belonging to this head, in the eighth section of the observations. “The religious societies, you say, in London and Westminster, for many years past, have received no discouragements, but on the contrary have been countenanced and incouraged both by the bishops and clergy.” How is this? Have they then “qualified themselves and places of their assembling, according to the act of toleration?” Have they “embraced the protection which that act might give them, in case they complied with the conditions of it?” If not, are they not all “liable to the penalties of the several statutes made before that time against unlawful assemblies?”
How can they escape? Have they “qualified themselves for holding these separate assemblies, according to the tenor of that act”? “Have then the several members thereof taken the oaths to the government?” And are the “doors of the places wherein they meet, always open at the time of such meeting?” I presume, you know they are not: and that neither “the persons nor places are so qualified as that act directs.”
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.”