You next observe, that, “the dissenters of all denominations, qualify themselves according to the act of toleration: otherwise, they are liable to the penalties of all the laws recited in this act.”
I answer, as before, all this strikes wide. It relates wholly to “persons dissenting from the church.” But we are not the men. We do not dissent from the church. Whoever affirms it, we put him to the proof.
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.