But [♦]waving this, I deny the second proposition; I deny that field-preaching is contrary to the laws of our land.
[♦] “waveing” replaced with “waving” for consistency
To prove which, you begin thus, “It does not appear, that any of the preachers among the Methodists, have qualified themselves and the places of their assembling, according to the act of toleration.”
*I answer, 1. That act grants toleration to those who dissent from the established church. But we do not dissent from it. Therefore we cannot make use of that act. 2. That act exempts dissenters from penalties consequent on their breach of preceding laws. But we are not conscious of breaking any law at all. Therefore we need not make use of it.
In the next section you say, “They have broken through all these provisions, in open defiance of government: and have met, not only in houses, but in the fields, notwithstanding the statute (22 Charles II. chapter 1.) which forbids this by name.”
*I answer, 1. We do nothing in defiance of government. We reverence magistrates, as the ministers of God. 2. Although we have met in the fields, yet we do not conceive that statute at all affects us: not only because that act points wholly at dissenters; whereas we are members of the established church; but also because (they are your own words) it was evidently intended to suppress and prevent sedition: whereas no sedition, nor any the least approach thereto, can with any colour be laid to our charge.
In your third section you affirm, “That the act of toleration itself cannot secure us in field-preaching, from the penalties of former laws.” We have no desire it should; as not apprehending ourselves to be condemned by any former law whatever. Nor does what you add, “That the act of toleration forbids any assembly of persons dissenting from the church of England, to meet with the doors locked,” affect us at all; because we do not dissent from it.
5. In the case of the Methodists briefly stated, your first observation is, “The act of toleration leaves them liable to the penalties of several statutes made against unlawful assemblies.”
I suppose then these several statutes specify what those unlawful assemblies are; and whether unlawful, as being condemned by previous laws, or made unlawful by those statutes.
And it still remains to be proved, that our assemblies are unlawful, in one or other of these senses.