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.
But before those words, which you suppose to imply such a restraint, as would condemn all the bishops and clergy in the nation, 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. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven, and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained. And be thou a faithful dispenser of the word of God, and of his Holy sacraments, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
You proceed, “In the same journal he declares, that he looks upon all the world as his parish, and explains his meaning as follows; ‘In whatever part of it I am, I judge it meet, right, and my bounden duty, to declare unto all that are willing to hear, the glad tidings of salvation. This is the work which I know God hath called me to.’ Namely, by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery: which directs me how to obey that general command, while we have time, let us do good unto all men.”
11. You object farther, “That the methodists do not observe the rubrick before the communion service; which directs, so many as desire to partake of the holy communion, to signify their names to the curate the day before.” What curate desires they should? Whenever any minister will give but one week’s notice of this, I undertake, all that have any relation to me, shall signify their names within the time appointed.
You object also, that they break through the twenty-eighth canon, which requires, “That if strangers come often to any church from other parishes, they should be remitted to their own churches, there to receive the communion with their neighbours.”