You go on, “One of those laws so recited (viz. _22 Charles II. chapter 1._) is that which forbids _field-preaching_ by name; and was evidently intended, not only to _suppress_, but also to _prevent_ sedition. As the title of the _act declares_, and as the preamble expresses it, _to provide farther and more speedy remedies against it_.”
*Was this then, in your own judgment, _the evident intention of that act_, viz. _To provide remedies against sedition_? Does the very _title of the act declare this_? And _the preamble_ also _express it_? With what justice then, with what ingenuity or candor, with what shadow of truth or reason, can any man cite this act against us? Whom you yourself no more suspect of a design to raise sedition (I appeal to your own conscience in the sight of God) than of a design to blow up the city of _London_.
6. Hitherto therefore it hath not been made to appear, that _field-preaching_ is contrary to any law in being. However, “It is dangerous.” This you strongly insist on. “It may be attended with mischievous consequences. It may give advantages to the enemies of the established government. It is big with mischief.” (_Observations_, Section I. and II.)
With what mischief? Why, “evil-minded men, by meeting together _in the fields_, under pretence of religion, may raise riots and tumults; or by meeting _secretly_, may carry on _private_ cabals against the state.” (_Case of the Methodists_, page 2.)
“And if the _Methodists_ themselves are a _harmless_ and _loyal_ people, it is nothing to the point in hand. For disloyal and seditious persons, may use such an opportunity of getting together, in order to execute any private design. Mr. _Whitefield_ says, 30, 50 or 80,000 have attended his preaching at once. Now, 1. He cannot know one tenth part of such a congregation. 2. All people may come and carry on what designs they will: Therefore 3. This is a great opportunity put into the hands of seditious persons to raise disturbances.
“With what safety to the public these field-preachings may be continued, let the world judge.” (_Ibid._ page 2, 3, 4.).
*May I speak without offence? I cannot think you are _in earnest_. You do not _mean_ what you _say_. Do you _believe_, Mr. _Whitefield_ had _eighty thousand_ hearers at once? No more that you believe he had _eighty millions_. Is not all this talk of _danger_, mere finesse? Thrown in purely _ad movendam invidiam_? You know governments generally are suspicious; especially in time of war: and therefore apply, as you suppose, to their weak side; in hopes, if possible, to deliver over these hereticks to the secular arm. However, I will answer, _as if_ you spoke from your heart. For I am in earnest, if you are not.
First, “The preacher cannot know a tenth part of his congregation.” Let us come to the _present_ state of things. The largest congregation that _now_ attend the preaching of any _Methodist_, are those (God be merciful to me!) that attend mine. And cannot I know a tenth part of one of these congregations, either at _Bristol_, _Kingswood_, _Newcastle_, or _London_? As strange as it may seem, I generally know two-thirds of the congregation in every place, even on Sunday evening, and nine in ten of those who attend at most other times. 2. “All people may come and carry on what designs they will.” Not so. All _field-preaching_ is now in the open day. And were only ten persons, to come to such an assembly with arms, it would soon be inquired, with what design they came. This is therefore, 3. No “great opportunity put into the hands of seditious persons to raise disturbances.” And if ever any disturbance has been raised, it was quite of another kind.
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.”